Venezuela furious at Obama's comments on ailing Chavez

[Zorro]

Source: Reuters

Venezuela's government reacted with fury on Friday to U.S. President Barack Obama's criticism of ailing Hugo Chavez's "authoritarian" government at a time of national anxiety over his battle to recover from cancer surgery.

In an interview with U.S. network Univision, Obama declined to speculate on the 58-year-old socialist president's health in Cuba, where he is in a delicate state after his fourth operation since mid-2011 for cancer in his pelvic region.

But he did say U.S. policy was aimed at ensuring "freedom" in Venezuela. "The most important thing is to remember that the future of Venezuela should be in the hands of the Venezuelan people. We've seen from Chavez in the past authoritarian policies, suppression of dissent," Obama said.

Those remarks went down badly with officials in Caracas where emotions are running high over the future of Chavez and his self-styled revolution in the South American OPEC nation.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-furious-obamas-comments-ailing-chavez-002945323.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Reminds me of the fifties

Persia should be in the hands of own people.............it was.

Guatemala should be in the hands of its own people.............it was.

Into the seventies :

Chile should be the hands of its people...............it was.

Some things never change. Venezuela is in the hands of its own people.

[lunasun]

2. authoritarian policies, suppression of dissent is Obama talking about various Occupy here

or Venezuela?

[socialist_n_TN]

63. Yeah that too. Actually I was wondering how many drones........

Venezuela had shadowing it's own people. Or folks in the Mideast.

[Kolesar]

3. That's messed up

The President has never got this issue right.

[randome]

5. I don't think ANYONE has it right about Chevez and Venezuela.

Plenty of DUers think he is a monster. Others think he's the Second Coming. I can't say I've taken the time to figure it all out.

[Kolesar]

6. Yes. It's a big topic.

I feel sympathetic to Chavez because bush tried to remove him ten years ago. I think he was better for his people than his predecessor. Almost none of this gets coverage in the US press.

[flamingdem]

24. Obama AND Hillary are dumb on Cuba

at least Bill lightened up the blockade a bit.

I swear they just don't spend any time thinking about Latin American and it shows.

The only ones who make it up the ladder on Latam are right wingish so they repeat the lies.

We haven't advanced much since the Spanish American war in terms of understanding Cuba that's for sure.

[mithnanthy]

42. Hillary's brother, Hugh Rodham's wife....Maria Victoria Arias

...is a powerful person (lawyer), originally from Cuba, who is VERY active in working against Chavez. She IS the bad influence on Hillary's view of Chavez.

[flamingdem]

43. Oh that's interesting, I've known about her influence for years

but didn't realize she's Venezuelan.

Sooo, maybe that's why Obama let loose with the nasty comments about Chavez even as he's fighting for his life with cancer. It seems like Hillary tells Obama what to think about Latin America and her brother instructs her -- this is one problem with Hillary 2016, poor understanding and disrespect for our Southern neighbors.

[mithnanthy]

46. I edited my post..

..to make a correction..she is originally from Cuba. (sorry for the mistake) However, the content of her hatred of Chavez is correct. Yes, Arias and Hugh Rodham are most definitely influencing Hillary, who then passes that negative attitude to Obama.

[Kolesar]

49. That's good stuff

Do you have anything you can post about that in the Latin American forum? We can muse on it. Gotta leave right now, actually.

[Carnage251]

11. The Hugo Chavez Show is very informative

I haven't watched it in a while, but it shows how ineffective and erratic he is.

[99th_Monkey]

35. For being "ineffective and erratic", Hugo certainly has accomplished quite a bit

don't you think?

I mean, really. Just because you experience his mannerisms as unique (erratic?)
does not make him an ineffective leader. He has done more for Venezuelan poor
folks than most any prior leader there, which is why the people keep re-electing
him.

You should watch this excellent documentary about Chavez, and the US coup that
tried to unseat him, and the people en mass, surrounded the Presidential Palace
to DEMAND he be reinstated as their duly elected president. At the crucial moment,
both the palace guard and then the military turned their guns away from Chavez
and his supporters and ONTO the very puppets the US was trying to put into power.

It was shot LIVE on the scene, as this film crew "just happened" to be living in the
presidential palace at the time the coup broke out, and just stayed through the
entire ordeal with cameras rolling. Not your usual "talking heads" documentary.

[randome]

41. Yeah, I don't really care about his personality.

On balance, it seems he's done more good than harm. The same could have been said for Sadaam Hussein, IMO.

[HoosierRadical]

66. Don't be so intellectually lazy, by comparing the two men.

Hussein was once a favored US puppet, even though he was brutal dictator, and our government knew and in some effect supported such behavior, as long as it benefited US "interests".

Chavez on the other hand has never been the US's puppet, nor has he committed the heinous crimes of Hussein, the only "crime" he has committed is criticizing US imperialism and capitalism. Plus unlike Hussein, Chavez, has been re-elected three times in clean elections.

[99th_Monkey]

78. + 1000 - well said. nt

[bitchkitty]

102. "Intellectually lazy" is the perfect description for all of the anti-democracy trolls

who form joyous circle jerks over a man's serious illness. They've formed a death cult, a bunch of perverted buzzards who gather round in sweaty anticipation of God knows what kind of a disaster for Venezuela. I fucking hate their guts.

[wordpix]

125. wow, the people support him when he's gained control of all branches of gov.,

changed districts so he wins every time, uses gov. resources for pro-Chavez propaganda and rallies, tells people to take off work to show up at rallies and wear red, takes over all media except for one independent TV station remaining---and that station owner had to flee the country for his life due to exercising his freedom of speech rights---changes the Constitution to gain more power for himself, etc. etc.

Just because a leader is democratically elected does not mean he's a democratic leader.

[99th_Monkey]

149. Hugo knows that the US/CIA is utterly determined to unseat him somehow

The only reason Hugo survived that blatant attempt to unseat him in the video, because
the people demanded to have their elected leader back in office, period. The Venezuelan
Army was not willing to completely go against the clear will of the million people who had
surrounded the Presidential Palace to demand Chavez be re-instated.

Because Hugo knows he's being targeted, he may be a bit overly cautious in some of his
security practices, but despite this, he is widely and deeply appreciated and supported by the
majority of Venezuelans.

Have you watched that video? If not, you really should inform yourself of it's contents before
berating Chavez for being extra-cautious about being "eliminated" by CIA's shadowy forces.

[wordpix]

174. oh yeah, the US wants to unseat him and he's the CIA's prime target (sarcasm)

The people of Venez. will unseat Hugo and CIA has other priorities

[roody]

116. If Chavez were ineffective,

the PTB would not be insulting him. And executing coups, etc.

[HoosierRadical]

65. Chavez is neither a monster or the Second Coming, what he is ...

A duly thrice elected president who believes in the "radical" idea that the natural resources should benefit ALL the people of Venezuela and not just a handful of oligarchs who brazenly without remorse sell off something that ethically isn't theirs to sell off in the first place, to foreign corporations.

Chávez describes his policies to be anti-imperialist, and he is a vocal critic of neoliberalism and laissez-faire capitalism more generally, Chávez has been a prominent adversary of the United States' foreign policy.[3]

When you have the time, view this 2005 interview he had with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman.

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/19/hugo_chavez_if_the_imperialist_government

[MyNameGoesHere]

98. Why does my opinion of Chavez even matter?

I like what Chavez stands for mostly. But the thing I support 100% is that the majority of the people who live in Venezuela support him. And trust me they are at times conflicted as I am about supporting him. It is my hope that even if the man dies, the Bolivarian revolution lives on, matures and grows to become what all those who have placed their hope in.

[wordpix]

124. he has changed the Constitution and chipped away at democracy and rights of citizens

all to centralize his own power and that of his party and family. He is BFEE without a break between Poppy and W for 14 years and now another 6.

Think about it. The man is a dictator. Maybe he started out well, I don't know. But I know quite a bit about the situation now and O is right

[sabrina 1]

131. The people of Venezuela got it right and it is no one else's business. The Chavez

haters, who are mostly Global Corporate thugs who will never get over any Latin American leader deciding that their resources belong to the people of Venezuela and not to these outsider, corrupt institutions that raped every one of those countries dry until leaders like Chavez, one of the most popular leaders in all of Latin America, put a stop to the theft.

It really is very simple. Either you respect the sovereignty of other nations and the choices of their people in some of the cleanest elections ever, or you don't. Looks like our President has chosen to be on the wrong side of history here. Latin America is not going back to the old ways of US backed dictators like Pinochet. Enough time has passed to give them time to consolidate the powers of their various countries which they did with the sole purpose of keeping the old Imperialists out of their business.

So sad, I actually thought that this president would move forward into the future, a future that Latin America has chosen for itself. But apparently not.

[Daniel537]

48. And it ain't the only issue he has never got right.

The PATRIOT Act, the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping etc... Civil liberties have not been his strength.

[Kolesar]

154. President Obama didn't start "those three"

"For the record" \\:~<

[Ash_F]

4. Authoritarian like extrajudicial killing, kidnapping and imprisonment?

Pretty sure Venezuela doesn't do that. I know some other countries do though.

[Carnage251]

8. Authoritarian like only allowing abortion when there is a threat to the life of the pregnant woman

Like being ranked 117th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index 2011-2012
He called gaddafi a "martyr"
I don't understand why people on here a have a idealize him.

This is very informative.

[happyslug]

20. The US is 47 on that list

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

The Full Report:
http://en.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2012/C_GENERAL_ANG.pdf

the climate was still characterized by judicial harassment, issues of balance and pluralism, polarization and repeated attacks on the press. This was even more the case in Venezuela (117th), which nonetheless rose 16 places.

Notice in regard to Venezuela, Judicial Harressment is alledged (and that would Government Action) the rest can be from people OPPOSED to the Government

[flamingdem]

23. Chinese leaders aren't so great either but we never see them getting called out..

This is so hypocritical.. we have enough of our own problems. Chavez was legally elected by a good margin.

[lunasun]

85. and the Chinese leaders were 'picked' not elected but are the business buddies

for multi national corps so they are A-OK!!!
This is so hypocritical. yes

[Ken Burch]

27. Well, he created the community councils that have given Venezuela real democracy(from the ground up)

for the first time...and he's used the oil wealth to help the people.

The abortion thing is unpleasant, but it's not like it would be an improvement for Venezuela to have a government that was pro-choice but also imposed strict austerity and carried water for multinational corporations.

[JackRiddler]

140. And is the opposition pro-choice?

[Ash_F]

32. Obama has no moral high ground to be calling Venezuela authoritarian

There is no equivalency between how the two countries treat people. I'm sorry, the US government is far and away worse.



My comment had nothing to do with idolizing Chavez. Thanks for the link. I will watch it.

[dipsydoodle]

34. I assume you are aware that Venenuela is predominately Catholic country

and as such Chavez is hardly likely to be personally responsible for their policies on abortion.

[ronnie624]

64. That documentary wasn't that much of an indictment.

So, Chavez has an ego. All political leaders do.

He doesn't mow protesters down in the streets or arrest the opposition en mass and torture them. He was elected repeatedly in verifiable elections (unlike in the US). His government's policies are at least tolerated by a majority of Venezuelans, and he doesn't invade his neighbors or otherwise violate their sovereignty. His effort to reform his country's system has been a huge task, undertaken against incredible opposition. People can be particularly vile, when motivated by greed and racism. It's truly amazing that he has accomplished anything, and that he wasn't assassinated long ago.

The documentary also perpetuates the myth about "shutting down" RC TV, when what actually happened, was the government allowed its license to permanently expire, thus denying them the right to broadcast over publicly owned frequencies; perfectly legal. The owners of the company got off very light, after their involvement in the attempt to overthrow the constitutionally elected government. I think we can accurately guess at the result of US broadcasters involving themselves in a plot against the government.

I'm always disappointed when people resort to misinformation (PBS, not necessarily you).

[Ken Burch]

91. Virtually all Latin American countries have strict anti-abortion laws.

The Venezuelan statute you cite almost certainly existed before Chavez came into office...it's hardly likely that the previous bourgeois governments of that country were going to stand up to the Catholic hierarchy MORE than Chavez has.

[Judi Lynn]

92. It would seem impossible for anyone to be unaware of Latin American Catholicism. Yikes. n/t

[joshcryer]

96. Chavez has had decree powers for much of his tenure.

He could've ended those laws with a flick of a pen.

He doesn't because he appeals to Venezuelan Catholics.

[Ken Burch]

97. The candidate you were backing was appealing to them as well.

Since he was to Chavez' right on economics, we can assume he'd have been a social conservative as well, and refused to change the law either.

Besides which, it's kind of weird that you're attacking Chavez here for NOT ruling by decree in this instance.

[joshcryer]

100. Yeah, I doubt you could get elected there being pro-choice.

I'm just pointing out an inconsistency. Chavez feigns progressivism but in the end he and the chavistas have called Capriles anti-semetic and homophobic things (Maudro is famous for that one, soon to be next President of Venezuela).

Anyway, Chavez has the power is all I'm saying. I would prefer that pro-choice laws be inacted by the population, but they're not particularly progressive either, particularly chavistas who ran a homophobic smear campaign against Capriles (who may actually be gay but his career would be over if he came out of the closet).

[Ken Burch]

101. There's a difference though, in observing that Chavez may have taken social conservative positions

(I disagree with those as much as you do, btw)because of the fact that he was seeking office in an overwhelmingly Catholic country(in Latin America, even "liberation theology" Catholics follow the Church's teaching on abortion, btw)and saying that the existence of this policy is the result of Chavez' "authoritarian" tendencies(tendencies, I maintain, that you'd probably see in any government led by any party on that continent, to at least some degree).

It's not as if Venezuela had pro-choice legislation that Chavez personally fought to repeal, after all.

And, as you just stated, things wouldn't be different on these issues if Capriles were president, so what are we even talking about here?

I wish every country was progressive on social issues like choice and LGBT rights...and I'd favor allowing women from countries where abortions were banned to come to the U.S. for the procedure and for asylum for LGBT people from any country where they fear for their personal safety...but, in poor countries, the creation of at least relative economic equality and the end of social exploitation. need to be addressed first. The issues you and I are talking about here, while important, are more importance to upper middle-class and lighter-skinned people-and it wouldn't be healthy for gays and women seeking abortion rights to gain those victories under a government that was imposing austerity and increasing inequality, because, having made those gains while the majority was losing, those groups would look like they were getting special privileges and would be the victims of backlash campaigns.

[joshcryer]

103. The thing is Obama gets bashed here for that "pragmatism."

But Obama never had decree powers so you can't say "Well Obama had the power to do it he just didn't." You can 100% say that about Chavez. He had the power to do it with the flick of a pen, he didn't.

The difference is Capriles wouldn't ever get decree powers (unless somehow he got the Parliament) and therefore he does have to be pragmatic.

[King_David]

127. 'lighter-skinned people'

?

LGBT rights are more important to 'upper middle-class and lighter-skinned people' ?

[Ken Burch]

133. I was talking about a situation where you have LGBT rights and you also have

larger social and economic justice issues. This isn't about the question of whether LGBT rights are a legitimate cause or not, or whether they matter or not.

If you're in a Latin American country, and you're not wealthy(and let's face it, in Latin America almost all the wealthy are light-skinned), obviously things like social equality, the end of poverty, and the end of labor exploitation are probably going to be slightly higher on your agenda than LGBT rights. Doesn't mean you'd be against them, just that they might not top your list of priorities. If you have twelve kids and you're living in a slum in Caracas, for example(which means you're also probably mestizo or Afro-Venezuelan, you'd almost never be pure-blooded Spanish-descent in a neighborhood like that, due to the history or racism throughout Latin America), you're obviously not going to be focused on, say, same-sex marriage to a greater degree than you will be focused on being able to feed your kids or have their right to an education and health care and later, a job, guaranteed. There's nothing evil in acknowledging that. And there's nothing disrespectful to the LGBT cause(which I support just as strongly as you do, for the record)in saying it.

The best way to alter this reality is for LGBT people, in Venezuela and everywhere else, is to back everybody else's fight for social and economic justice with the same passion devoted to the ssm fight-to care just as much about the poor, about labor, about people of color(obviously LGBT people of color don't need to be told about the last part)and about everybody else on the outside, in this country and in all other countries. You can't fight for LGBT rights in isolation, acting as if no other rights and no other causes matter. You need to take the old IWW view that "an injury to ONE...is an injury to ALL".

You have to include everybody in the fight for justice...you can't just focus, as you seem to, on LGBT issues in isolation to the rest of the progressive/left agenda. You have to fight, equally, for the workers, for the poor, and for all of the dispossessed. Only if you do that do you have the right to ask those groups to back you.

Most LGBT people get that.

I hope this post has convinced you that you had nothing to be outraged about at all in my previous post. Are we good, now?

[Bacchus4.0]

136. most of the poor in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay are lighter skinned

since most of the population is. The majority of wealthy might be lighter skinned, but the majority of the lighter skinned are not wealthy.

[Ken Burch]

146. OK, I was specifically talking about Venezuela.

(you do realize, though, that a significant part of the poor in Chile and Uruguay are indigenous, right?)

[Bacchus4.0]

147. no, the indigenous populations in those two countries are quite small

so the the significant portion of the poor are NOT indigenous although I imagine a large portion of the indigenous are poor.

[Ken Burch]

150. It still applies to Venezuela, though

Can we move on, now?

I was just talking about the poor and relative priorities.

Nothing I posted deserved this absurd level of scrutiny.

Enough already.

[Bacchus4.0]

152. sure, I would just point out that the current VP Maduro is a homophobe

calling the opposition candidate a "maricon" (faggot). I do not think the Chavez government is progressive on social issues at all.

[Ken Burch]

166. You'd have to concede, though, that it would be a loss for Venezuela to end up

with a government that was socially progressive as you defined it, but pro-austerity and privatization on economic and social justice issues...that is, was progressive only on issues that mattered to rich people first.

In a place like Venezuela, you have to put the needs of the poor and the working class first...then, after that, you can work on issues like LGBT rights and reproductive choice.

Maduro can be lobbied to change(even Cuba is pro-LGBT now, and they were much worse on that issue than Venezuela ever was). Capriles, on the other hand, could never be lobbied to care about the poor and the workers...free-market types are always against the poor and the workers(as you should have seen from watching how those people act here).

If he lived in the U.S, we could assume that Capriles would have campaigned for Romney.

[Bacchus4.0]

168. not really, nobody has ever argued for austerity

Capriles leans lefts and would undoubtedly be at least able to dialogue with Obama. State expropriations have been ineffective. The agricultural sector is woefully inadequate. Venezuela is completely oil dependent.

[ronnie624]

109. The decree powers have always been very limited, both in scope and duration,

dealing primarily with matters of fiscal policy, public housing, and managing natural disasters. It's highly unlikely he could have reversed any laws on abortion. The political backlash would no doubt prevent it, even if he did have that power.

[joshcryer]

118. He's used them beyond that scope before.

For example, the 3 day alcohol ban.

I do agree though that the powers were granted to him with limited scope, but there's nothing stopping him, except as I said and you agree, the political ramifications for doing so.

[Ash_F]

115. So having watched the video...

I have to agree with the other poster that it is not much of an indictment of authoritarianism. Particularly the part where he was kidnapped by the military elite for 48 hours before they realized they would have had a revolt over it. He came out in favor of reconciliation. The worst thing that happened to anyone involved was that the media station that tried to hide what was happening did not have their license renewed 5 years later.

If some general like Petraeus and his high society boys had done that to Obama, there would a lot of dead people; no trial. The rest would be in jail or hung for treason, don't you think?

[leftlibdem420]

123. He's right about Gaddafi.

Gaddafi's Libya had the highest HDI, highest GDP per capita, highest life expectancy, and highest Gini Coefficient in Africa, according ti the United Nations.The rebels, backed by Islamists and by petroleum barons, relied on extreme racist and anti-Semitic propaganda to undermine Gaddafi's legitimacy. Remember that while Reagan's America and Thatcher's Britain were standing up in support of Apartheid South Africa, Gaddafi's Libya was arming and funding the ANC in their struggle against the White supremacist terrorist regime that had been in place there. If you supported the rebels and the NATO intervention to support Gaddafi, you were on the same side as the Islamic extremists and of Big Oil. Gaddafi's shortcomings and sins are manifold, but none of that should take away from the spectacular achievements Libya, previously an impoverished backwater controlled by monied Italian interests, realized under his regimes. People who back the rebels are politically illiterates morons, no different from those who lauded the Mujahideen as freedom fighters merely because of their dislike for the Soviet Union.

Just for fun, how about we compare the evolution of Egypt's quality of life indices under Mubarak with Libya's under Gaddafi...

[tama]

38. And Homeland Security and Loyal Party Mayors

violently and unconstitutionally breaking up citizen assemblies...

[wordpix]

126. yes, that is exactly it, I know someone whose house was searched by Chavez' men twice

b/c they wanted to kidnap him and take him for some nefarious purpose. This because he was exercising his right of free speech. He fled the country for his life.

[Ash_F]

128. Anonymous internet anecdotes are useless here.

Back it up with evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

[wordpix]

138. I am not revealing the names of my friends whose entire family fled Chavez for their lives and due

the terrible security situation where one of the grown sons was kidnapped with 3 of his friends off the street, for no other reason than that they were not dressed in rags. Why should I? The Chavez thugs are likely to come to the US to kidnap at least the father once again, as they tried to twice in his own home in Venez. And what's my motive for making this up? I'm a US citizen and I've never been to Venezuela. I have just become friendly with a family of Venezuelans who know what it's like there and have been targeted by Chavez b/c the father exercised his right of free speech.

[Ash_F]

157. First they were searching their homes, now they're kidnapping them off the streets.

...then again at home. One minute it's Chavez's "men", the next it is thugs. Oh I'm sorry, was it Chavez's thugs? I guess that is kind of like how criminals are all Democrats in the US, according right-wing nutters here.

Comical. Why does DU put up with this dog-whistling?

[wordpix]

173. read this to get it straight: it was Chavez' thugs TWICE at the father's home and

ONE kidnapping of the grown son with his three friends. The kidnapping was NOT Chavez's men but is an example of how dangerous the in-security situation is there. There is even a name for kidnapping that occurs when you are quickly returned after paying the ransom: "express" kidnapping. They happen there with increasing frequency.

However, if Chavez' men show up at your home to question you, they may take you out of your home against your will, thus a kidnapping if that had occurred. But the father was not home both times. And then he left Venez., never to return at least until Chavez' regime is over.

[Bacchus4.0]

156. 20% of crimes in Venezuela are attributed to the police, and that number

came fromt he Interior Minister.

[Ash_F]

158. And this is relevant reply, how?

In case you did not realize, the military and the police lean right as they do in most countries and not completely loyal to the government. They did try to kidnap and depose him after all.

By your logic, that quote should make you support Chavez.

[Bacchus4.0]

159. because you said that Venezuela doesn't do that, you are wrong. Here is your quote

"Pretty sure Venezuela doesn't do that. I know some other countries do though"

you were referring to kidnapping, extrajudicial killings and imprisonment.

Venezuela has the highest rate of kidnapping in South America, the highest murder rate AND gross totals in South America, and the vast majority of prisoners have not even been officially charged, and not lets forget about the horrid prison conditions.

Their own interior minister said that the police were responsible fro 20% o f the crimes in Venezuela. The justice system is practically non-existent, and their prison system an abject disaster. Lets also not forget that Chavez was a coup leader and imprisoned for treason. Venezuela has also been designated the most corrupt nation in South America.


anything else?

[Ash_F]

162. Try reading for comprehension

You are ridiculous.

[Bacchus4.0]

164. in your first response you also said the military leans right, nope

the military is sworn Chavista. Do some studying on the situation instead of just being a cheerleader. Obama is correct.

[Ash_F]

167. No, the military leans left so they kidnapped him.

[Bacchus4.0]

170. correct, the military leans left. You should have stopped there

as your statement is incoherent.

[Ash_F]

171. The military kidnapped Hugo Chavez in 2002

Educated yourself on Venezuela at least if you are going to spew right-wing nuttery on this board.

[Bacchus4.0]

172. You educated (sic) yourself. You are wrong that the military leans right.

His loyalists in the military reinstated him and since 2002 the military has become completely chavista.

[Proletariatprincess]

7. I am furious with him too

What a jerk. What a ungracious and anti diplomatic thing to say. The USA has absolutely no right to critisize other nations for any reason whatsoever. That especially applies to Latin American Countries where the USA has done such terrible things in it's own interests while calling it liberation.
Obama disappoints more every day.

[Carnage251]

10. Yeah, we also should never criticize North Korea and their political prison camps

We should say nothing when a country wants to make homosexuality an offense punishable by death.
What terrible things has Obama done to South America that gives him no right to criticize?

What about Syria? Should we start a petition demanding Obama stay out of their affairs and not draw the line at chemical weapons.

[Ken Burch]

17. It's not him(although there was no excuse for Obama to aid and abet the Honduran coup)

It's our whole history in the hemisphere. The U.S. government has been the leading force for greed, inequality, brutality and outright evil ever since the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine.

We have no right to control Latin America. It is not our "sphere of influence"...Latin America exists, first and foremost, for itself, and has the right to run its affairs on its own terms, and to put the needs of the people of Latin America first.

And every time any U.S. president has started attacking a Latin American country for supposedly being "dictatorial" the result was either a bloody military coup(Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Chile being the best-known examples in fairly recent history)a military destabilization campaign(the so-called "Contras" that the U.S. invented to torment Nicaragua)or the long-term subjugation of a smaller country(the economic persecution of Cuba).

Learn your history before you make sanctimonious comments about what other countries do.

[Carnage251]

50. I know my history and I don't see Obama attempting a coup in that country

You must think Obama is striving for inequality, brutality, and evil in Latin America?

No need to give me a history lesson, I already know about everything you posted MR. Know It All.

[Ken Burch]

86. If you really UNDERSTOOD that history, you'd understand

that every time a U.S. leader makes comments about another hemispheric country's government, it's historically been the prelude to some sort of coup or destabilization effort. Such talk always creates resentment and fear among Latin Americans, with just cause.

Obama's comments might be different if he'd be willing to admit publicly that everything the U.S. has ever done to Latin America has been reactionary and invasive at best, and the cause of massive bloodshed at worst, and would pledge never again to intervene in another Latin American country's internal affairs.

A truly progressive president, in short, would finally renounce the Monroe Doctrine and apologize for all that his(or eventually her)predecessors had done in the hemisphere.

Obama is fighting for market economics and "free trade" in Latin America...what else can you call that but working for "inequality, brutality and evil"? It's not like economic imperialism is ok when a supposedly "liberal" president engages in it...JFK's "charming" imperial program in Latin America was just as retrograde as Nixon's charmless version of the same.
If you want Obama to succeed in the hemisphere in his second term, you need to be pushing for him to leave Latin American countries alone...to let them carry out the policies THEY want, and to do so without fear of U.S. economic retribution or worse(what happened in Honduras was an example of the "worse", and it would be no victory for anything Democrats believe in for anything like that or any OTHER form of intervention in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, or the rest of the Hemisphere.)


It's time for the U.S. to admit that Latin America exists first and foremore for the people of Latin America...NOT for U.S. corporations. Agreed?

[Judi Lynn]

88. Venezuelans are more than familiar with US butting into their country's personal business.

From 1952, images of Vice-President Richard M. Nixon's less than fabulous trip to Caracas:

[center]









[/center]

[Ken Burch]

90. Thanks for the eloquent images, Judi. n/t.

[Judi Lynn]

93. So glad to do it. Can't believe people are arguing who are unaware of this OLD, OLD conflict. n/t

[mecherosegarden]

44. +1

N/T

[Ken Burch]

99. Venezuela has nothing in common with North Korea or Syria.

Also, neither of those countries has a leader who is in poor health, so the "kicking 'em while they're down" factor isn't in play.

There's a huge difference between trash-talking the Bolivarian Revolution(the only government in Venezuelan history that's ever represented the poor or ever will)and calling out police state crazies in Damascus and Pyongyang.

And it's Uganda that's proposing to kill gays, not Venezuela.

[brooklynite]

135. ...except for supporting them

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-19/venezuela-expresses-sincere-sorrow-for-death-of-kim-jong-il.html

[Pterodactyl]

9. I agree with President Obama on this.

[Tempest]

12. Why?

"The most important thing is to remember that the future of Venezuela should be in the hands of the Venezuelan people."

Chavez was democratically elected in elections world observers said was less fraught with fraud than the 2000 and 2004 elections in the U.S.

And he's been re-elected.

Sounds like Venezuela is already doing what their people want.

[Pterodactyl]

13. And I hear the trains are always on time, too.

[Ken Burch]

15. Chavez has nothing in common with Mussolini.

Did he have to LOSE the last election to prove to you that he wasn't a tyrant?

Is there a reason you can't accept that the Venezuelan people might actually WANT socialism?

[Pterodactyl]

18. Let's go through the list.

1. Big fat guy
2. Military uniform
3. always going on about the "Fatherland"
4. Zealous supporters all wearing the same color shirt
5. allies with rogue nations

You're right. Nothing alike.

[flamingdem]

25. He called George Bush the devil, and I've always appreciated him for that

though he's not the ideal leader his people seem to support him quite heartily and democratically.

[Pterodactyl]

59. Yeah, we'll see if the new guy is any better when Chavez kicks the bucket.

[HoosierRadical]

67. I'm more partial to his description of Bush being a donkey...LOL

Although, as a Democrat, I'm a little conflicted with the beloved mascot of the party being used as an insult.

[flamingdem]

68. eres un burrro!

gotta love it

[Tempest]

29. "allies with rogue nations" ie: Nations the U.S. hates

That's a pretty low standard you've set for yourself.

[Pterodactyl]

61. Yeah, I'm easily annoyed by dictators, theocrats and terrorist sympathizers. I'm just like that.

[Tempest]

74. Since Chavez is none of those things, your annoyance is misplaced. n/t

[Pterodactyl]

81. I was talking about Hugo's terrorist allies (FARC) and his theocrat oil buddies in Iran.

[Comrade Grumpy]

145. The FARC is a Marxist guerrilla political formation, not "terrorists"...

...despite what the US State Department says.

The Colombian government is in peace negotiations with the FARC right now.

[Bacchus4.0]

148. FARC is engaged in an armed conflict to overthrow the Colombian democratic government

they may become a political formation once they lay down their arms, not yet.

Guerrilla comes from "guerra" which means war. They murder, assassinate, terrorize, lay land mines, kidnap, extort, and are narcotraffickers. Any supposed political motives are secondary to their role as a criminal terrorist organization.

[Comrade Grumpy]

153. They are a political-military formation.

People who know the FARC disagree with your assessment that "any supposed political motives are secondary to their role as a criminal terrorist organization."

They are a guerrilla army with a popular base of civilian support in some areas. They have a political platform. And they're very serious about it.

[Bacchus4.0]

155. they conscript child soldiers to fight and die, and girls as sexual slaves

They are despised in Colombia they use fear and violence to garner support. What is their political platform? Marxism by any means???

[Pterodactyl]

177. Hey, I gotta trust Barack and Hilary on this one.

If they say they are terrorists, I believe them.

[fasttense]

37. So you don't like his health regime and his, and his supporters, style of dress?

And you don't like "Fatherland", how about "Homeland"?

At least Chavez was legally elected by the people of his country which is more than I can say for our last president. (And NO Hitler was NOT legal elected to be Germany's chancellor, nor did the Nazi party have enough seats in the Reichstag to appoint the chancellor. Hitler got it by hook and by crook, much like the bushes got to be president in 2000.)

And yet Obama doesn't criticize the Chinese government for their authoritarian behavior. They even control the number of children and what religious leaders you can have. Talk about authoritarian.

[Pterodactyl]

56. Fatherland & Homeland

I don't like the the American use of "Homeland". I thought it was creepy when it first came up post-9/11 and I did not like the creation of the Dpertment of Homeland Securirty.

I agree with you on China. Obama should be more critical of the Chinese government and more supportive of democratic movements in that country.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

76. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The word patria is used in every Spanish

speaking country. Hugo Chavez doesn't use it more or less than the majority of Spanish speaking leaders. While I have many issues with his administration, your comments on the so called Fatherland (it's actually Motherland as in madre patria) are just a silly as they are simplistic. People should be way more concerned about the rampant crime and corruption than imaginary Mussolini comparisons.

[Ken Burch]

95. "Fatherland" is just a word-by itself, it means nothing.

The Soviet Union, our main ally in World War II(without whose heroic sacrifices Nazi Germany would have defeated the Allied antifascist forces easily, thus guaranteeing that Europe and probably the U.S. would be under bloodsoaked fascist rule to this day)called itself "The Motherland" while its soldiers were heroically giving up their lives by the millions in the fight against the Third Reich.

Hugo Chavez would have sent Venezuelan troops to fight on the side of the Allies AGAINST Hitler in World War II. You can't say that of most of the "free market" governments in Latin America. Certainly you can't say it of the Miami Cubans, either.

And you'd have to call out Obama for continuing to use the term "Homeland" if you're going to bust on Chavez using "Fatherland".

You probably celebrated when Bush the First forced the people of Nicaragua to vote the Sandinistas out in 1990. You're the sort who thinks it's only a "free election" when the free market(i.e., anti-humanity)party wins.

[RZM]

169. Actually, you can say that at about many Latin American countries

Quite a few, including Cuba, declared war on the Axis. Most didn't send troops (Mexico and Brazil were the exceptions), but they provided other types of support to the Allies.

Plenty of those countries were RW dictatorships, BTW.

[mecherosegarden]

45. I don't agree with you.

I am not sure that they want socialism. But when you have the money to buy " support around" then , sure you win an election. Why doesn't Chavez calls for a new election instead of naming Maduro, who was the Minister of Foreign affair until October ,and who Chavez named as vice president by special designation of Chávez himself. No, that doesn't seem like true democracy to me.

[Pterodactyl]

57. They might want socialism, but that does not mean it is a good thing.

Also, you can have socialism without voter suppression, media suppression and alliances with terrorists.

[Ken Burch]

84. As foreigners, It's not our place to say if it "isn't a good thing"-we're not Venezuelan.

(and, in truth, socialism is the only hope for a decent life for the non-wealthy, non-light skinned majority of Venezuela.)

It's reactionary to want any country to switch from socialism to capitalism...because if you want that, it means you want a totally right-wing future for that country...."market values" and common humanity cannot coexist.

Nobody was stopped from voting in Venezuela, and there's no real reason to question the legitimacy of Chavez's victory.

[Pterodactyl]

104. They criticize other countries all the time in Venezuela. We can do it, too.

[Ken Burch]

112. The diffference is that nobody in Latin America has ever tried to overthrow OUR government.

Our country, on the other hand, has repeatedly overthrown the governments of Latin American countries(in most cases, replacing democratic governments with "strongman" leaders like Trujillo or the Somozas or Castillo Armas(who killed 100,000 people after overthrowing the democratic government of Guatemala with U.S. help in 1954) or with military juntas
(like those we abetted in places like El Salvador.

We filled the streets of every Latin American capital with blood...rather than let those countries put the needs of their people before U.S. corporate profit.

THIS is why there are limits to what people in this country have the right to say about other countries in the hemisphere.

We can only remove those limits when we renounce the whole, arrogant, imperialist Monroe Doctrine heritage and let the people of the Americas use the resources of their own countries for themselves first...as it should always have been.

It's time our country's leaders stopped being the total bastards of the hemisphere. OK?

[Pterodactyl]

120. I would think criticizing instead of overthrowing would be an improvement.

[Tempest]

28. By many measures, the people are better off under Chavez

Poverty down, wages up, standards of living are up, the number of poor is dropping.

What's wrong with that?

[Pterodactyl]

62. Obama and Hilary know the score. I trust them to judge Chavez.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

77. Did you trust Mrs. Clinton during all those years she supported her friend Hosni Mubarak? nt

[Pterodactyl]

80. Of course! Are you saying Clinton and Obama were WRONG?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

82. Duh! So you support some dictators then. I thought you said above thread you were "Mr. Democracy". nt

[Ken Burch]

87. Yes...they were wrong to not immediately back the Egyptian Revolution.

They should have disowned Mubarak the moment Tahrir Square was taken by the people.

It was nearly a repeat of the stupid U.S. insistence on backing the Shah to the bitter end...and the ending was changed solely by the fact that Obama and HRC broke with Mubarak before it was COMPLETELY too late...but even then, they made sure that the Egyptian Left was not part of the post-Mubarak government, and in doing so made everything worse.

[Pterodactyl]

105. Oh, great! First you criticize Obama, now you're slamming Carter!

I thought I was on DEMOCRATIC Underground. Maybe I typed in the address wrong or something.

[Ken Burch]

111. It's Democratic Underground...NOT "DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS MUST NEVER BE CRITICIZED Underground".

I've thought Carter was wrong to back the Shah ever since he did it, back in '78-'79. I did vote for Carter against Reagan in the fall.

Clearly, there was no reason to back the Shah once it became clear that virtually everyone in Iran wanted him overthrown.

Are you seriously arguing that we should treat all Democratic presidents as infallible? If we'd done that, we'd have renominated LBJ and we'd probably still be BOMBING Vietnam.

For the record, while it was great that JFK set up the Peace Corps, I thought there was no excuse for him to greenlight the Bay of Pigs invasion and bring the world to the brink of destruction in the Cuban Missile Crisis. He should never have sent more advisors to what most Americans then called "Indochina". And he took his own sweet time deciding to back the Civil Rights movement(by 1962, he should have known that all the white Southerners were going to vote GOP in '64 no matter how much fence-sitting he did on that issue).

I thnk Truman was great on some things but was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki(we already had the war won) and wrong to help rev up Red Scare paranoia(the CPUSA would have died a natural death without McCarthyism, simply by its mindless insistence on defending Stalin). I liked most of what FDR did but hated his accommodations with segregationists, his refusal to back Upton Sinclair in the 1934 California governor's race(as the Democratic nominee, Sinclair had the right to EXPECT FDR's support) and his completely unjustified wartime decision to intern Japanese-Americans. And, while I admired the progressive things Woodrow Wilson did, he was horribly wrong in my book to get us into World War One(it wasn't worth spilling American blood...let alone the blood of the workers of Europe...deciding which decaying empires would get a few more years to survive before being deservedly cast on the ash heap of history-that and it sucked that he had a White House screening for BIRTH OF A NATION. The League of Nations was a good idea, though.

I liked the good things they did...but have the right to call out the bad things...and so does anybody else. Do you really have a problem with that?

I believe in the values of the Democratic Party...one of which is free speech and the right to hold all leaders, including all DEMOCRATIC leaders, accountable for their actions.

[Ash_F]

113. Don't feed it. /nt

[wordpix]

139. Carter, BTW, was BANNED from watchdogging the last election in Venez. THAT's how "democratic"

it is there under Chavez.

[Pterodactyl]

106. Duh! Of course I support the policies of the Obama admin.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

110. Great now that you've admitted your hypocrisy. We can move on. nt

[Ken Burch]

14. He should just shut the hell up about Venezuela.

No American president will EVER be morally entitled to attack Latin American countries on human rights issues.

I voted to re-elect Obama, but there's no excuse for shit like this.

[flamingdem]

22. Totally agree, and we almost had a Republican coup here

Obama always gets bad advise on Latin America, I am VERY happy Susan Rice didn't get SOS because she also showed signed of being an arrogant Ugly American on Latam matters.

Kerry knows what's up in that area, much better at least.

[Stewland]

16. Obama must realize

Obama is not running for a third term. He should become the progressive we elected him to be. That he is to the right of Nixon on many. Issues should be telling to all of us.

[joshcryer]

19. People in this thread are misreading what Obama is saying, typically.

[Tempest]

30. How so?

He makes a slam against Chavez and then insinuates the people didn't democratically elect him and don't support him.

[joshcryer]

31. Case in point.

Obama stated only fact. He no where did not say Chavez wasn't elected. He speaks only to the potential for civil war or future tyranny from Chavismo.

[bitchkitty]

114. Oh, please. Time after time you refer to tyranny and you use

that expression "chavismo" wrong EVERY FUCKING TIME. Trying to look deliberately stupid is not cute in any way, repeating the same bullshit is not smart in any way. It's just fucking stupid. It just makes you look fucking stupid.

[joshcryer]

117. Um, no, I don't.

Last time you pointed that out you just looked foolish.

[bitchkitty]

121. Um, yes, you do. n/t

[joshcryer]

122. Nope, chavismo is an ideology followed by chavistas.

[Ken Burch]

151. And means nothing other than support for socialism and human equality.

There's nothing evil about being a chavista. It's simply one political current among many...and it's time for people to stop acting as though Chavez and the PSUV are an illegitimate movement.

They are the only force in Venezuela that gives a damn about the poor. That is why they win. You need to accept that, at some point.

[JackRiddler]

143. Venezuelans just put paid to your "chavismo" talk in the latest elections.

They want their Bolivarian revolution. And if Chavez dies, they will vote again to continue the revolution and against your preferrence for the oligarchs, privatizers, IMF and CIA.

[flamingdem]

21. Obama is another oaf on Latin America

wtf?

Why do so many American Pols fail to understand basic respect for our neighbors????

Our democratically elected ones at that.


FAIL

[flamingdem]

26. At a time when we can't even protect our children in the USA what is Obama doing dissing

a popular democratically elected leader in Latin America.

The lack of respect for our own citizenry is an extension of this kind of world wide disrespect for others who may be different and not bow down to US interests.

This was a real error made by Obama, I hope that the other Latin American countries rebuke him hard.

After all it was the USA that is responsible for the carnage in Honduras and countless other acts of mayhem and murder against Latin America for the past 100+ years.

Chavez can be over the top but his heart in not evil. I'm feeling right now that our country is evil. Where else do 20 children get slaughtered with such ease. The US is all about power over others and money. The guns fit that picture.

[John2]

51. He needs to stop

trying to placate to the Rightwing in this country. They would have been all over him if Obama even said something positive about who the rightwingers hate. The American media would have been all over it too. They don't even want Obama to visit the man, so he can know what he is talking about. If I was the President of the United States, I would give both the finger and go where I please. That is the only way, that you can see the truth. When has the last time an American President visited Latin America?

[Bacchus4.0]

142. Obama was in Colombia in April, went to Chile too I believe and Mexico

maybe time to brush up on recent events. Obama isn't interested much in Chavez.

[Bacchus4.0]

141. how is Chavez protecting his people with the highest murder rate in South America

unbelievable comment. why don't you apply the same criticism of Chavez that you just leveled at Obama?

[Lasher]

33. I never thought I would see a Chavez thread as a refuge from animosity.

Any port in a storm, they say.

[dipsydoodle]

36. Venezuela furious at Obama's comments on ailing Chavez

(Reuters) - Venezuela's government reacted with fury on Friday to U.S. President Barack Obama's criticism of ailing Hugo Chavez's "authoritarian" government at a time of national anxiety over his battle to recover from cancer surgery.

>

Those remarks went down badly with officials in Caracas where emotions are running high over the future of Chavez and his self-styled revolution in the South American OPEC nation.

>

In power since 1999, Chavez is due to start a new six-year term on January 10 after winning re-election just weeks before Obama did. His health crisis has thrown that into doubt, and Chavez has named a successor in case he is incapacitated.

"With these despicable comments at such a delicate moment for Venezuela, the U.S. president is responsible for a major deterioration in bilateral relations, proving the continuity of his policy of aggression and disrespect towards our country," the Venezuelan government said in a statement.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/15/uk-venezuela-chavez-idUKBRE8BD1CY20121215

[Smarmie Doofus]

40. Riiiiigght. "Authoritarian". In *Venezuela*. (Not here.) So sez the 1 billion dollar man. n/t

[hughee99]

54. Exactly! It's not like Chavez asked for the power to rule by decree

and got it from a lame duck legislature just before his party was about to lose a bunch of seats. I could see where some MIGHT consider that slightly authoritarian, but that didn't happen in Venezuela, right?

[Daniel537]

47. Yes, Mr. Pres., Venezuela's future belongs to Venezuelans

which means we need to stay out of it. A simple "No comment" or "I wish Pres. Chavez a speedy recover" would have sufficed. What happened to candidate Obama who said he would meet with foreign "enemies" like Chavez without preconditions, or the one who said in 2004 that he supported ending the embargo against Cuba? That guy seems to be dead and gone, and i doubt he's coming back. Shame.

[amandabeech]

129. The President's remarks have infuriated the Venezuelan people, not just Chavez.

Your proposed responses are much better than anything coming out of the administration.

Perhaps you should consider entering the foreign service.

[bvar22]

52. The emerging Latin American Democracies...

...continue to be demonized by the political leadership of BOTH political parties while one of the last remaining Right Wing Militarized Police State Oligarchies (Colombia) continues to be the 3rd Largest Recipient of US Foreign Aid ,
and was recently rewarded by President Obama with a Brand New "Free Trade" Treaty despite one of the worst Human Rights records in Latin America.

[font size=3]"The worst enemy of humanity is U.S. capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that nation states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated."[/font]
----Bolivian Reform President Evo Morales

The Populist Reform movements in Latin America give me hope for the WORLD.
Our neighbors have give us a Blue Print for "change".
Spread the Word.

VIVA Democracy!
I pray we get some here soon!

[flamingdem]

53. Let's not forget that Chavez was the excuse to let the right wing thugs take over in Honduras

and to date they've killed thousands of unionists, teachers and journalists.

That is their policy, they have that blood on their hands and justify it saying that Zelaya was friends with Chavez.

Time to admit wrong and respect the emerging democracies as you say, it's something that needs our support, that is IF the USA is really interested in Democracy around the world..

[byeya]

55. It's telling that Zelaya was first taken to a USA military base after being deposed. He was

flown from the military base to exile.

[byeya]

58. Haven't South and Central America recently organized an OAS-like hemispheric

organization to deal with problems of mutual concern while specifically not including the USA and Canada?

[flamingdem]

69. I'm not sure but it was discussed

and I hope someone got the message in the State Dept. oops well I guess they didn't..

[byeya]

73. Thanks for the information

[Bacchus4.0]

144. yes, its known as CELAC but hasn't done anyting at all yet

they were supposed to meet in Caracas this year but with Chavez' health problems it didn't happen. The organization hasn't a done a thing. On the other hand, the same could be same of the OAS.

[HoosierRadical]

60. President Obama You Are WRONG!

Vast majority of Venezuela's citizens have voted repeatedly for Chavez, in percentages that President Obama could only dream about. There is no suppression of dissent, the wealthy elite control the corporate media in Venezuela as they do in this country, but their propaganda campaign against President Chavez has only strengthen his and the Venezuelan peoples resolve. Those oligarchs only care about themselves, and have no problem in allowing foreign corporations and governments to exploit and control Venezuela's natural resources, just as long as they get a piece of the action.

If President Obama wanted to be truly courageous and innovative, he would establish some kind of oil exchange with President Chavez that would cut the big and greedy oil companies out of the equation and result in affordable oil for US consumers, but no, he just parrots negative propaganda.

I love and respect President Obama, but it doesn't surprise me when he makes remarks like this, I mean he did describe himself as a 1980s moderate Republican. When I casted my vote for him, It wasn't for some finger to the wind, status quo 80's moderate republican, it was suppose to be for a bold and visionary progressive Democrat.

[flamingdem]

70. We need to kick his ass on this one

It's disgraceful, and I have been a mega Obama supporter but this is really irking me.. the arrogance of power and the stupidity of listening to other stupid people who know next to nothing about the history of US domination, exploitation and murder in Latin America.

I mean at least he should pretend that he gives a damn.

[HoosierRadical]

72. There are so many things we must due to ...

push President Obama into greatness, I'm going to keep my powder dry on this one, (meaning only criticizing his irresponsible remarks) my true battle is the protection of Medicare and Social Security as well as other investments in our people.

[flamingdem]

75. Me too. I listened to his remarks and they aren't as bad as I thought at first

Inappropriate but for sure we have bigger fish to fry here.

[jzodda]

71. Like all autocrats he has done some good and some bad

He has assumed a slight cult of personality down there and that's not good for the future of that country. Once he's dead they will be in for some very rough times. When you concentrate a revolution's power into an individual rather than strong institutions that can outlive you then the nation you leave behind is not better served. We shall see what happens there soon enough.

I am extremely unhappy that he has offered support for the Syrian government.

[indepat]

79. Shame on Chavez's authoritarian policies and shame, double shame on his suppression of dissent

[David__77]

83. McCarthyite tripe.

I do so hope that the changeover and the state department will clear out some of this type of nonsense.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

89. Tough crap, Venezuela. Don't allow yourself to be ruled by such a ridiculous dictator

[Judi Lynn]

94. Take some time to educate yourself with the facts. You'll have to do some reading for that,

and I don't mean "reading" at Fox News.

While you're at it, why not learn about "El Caracazo Massacre" in 1989, when the Venezuelan President ordered his police, who walked off the job, and then his military to fire point blank into crowds of protesting poor Venezuelans, who were desperately protesting his sudden price hike of fuel, pricing them out of transportation to their jobs, heating oil,
etc., etc.

They didn't have the luxury of listening to the right-wing spin about it from the right-wing media, and ran into the streets to get mowed down by soldiers who had come right into their neighborhoods to blow them away.

THAT piece of shit, Carlos Andres Perez was a beloved right-winger, but he was a filthy human being, and he was later impeached, and taken away.

Now THAT was a ridiculous (and EVIL, drooling idiot) right-wing dictator, who was beloved by the U.S. Republicans, and is still beloved by the Venezuelan oligarchy. He was A-OK for assholes, and despised by human beings.

[msanthrope]

108. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay. nt

[roody]

119. Does Pres. O know anything about Venezuela?

[Doctor_J]

176. He's getting more like Smirk every day

predicting party change in January

[sabrina 1]

130. What utter nonsense. Venezuela is more free than this country.

Obama needs to start working on our freedom. He needs to rescind the NDAA eg, and the FISA bill, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and all the other Bush Bills we elected him in 2008 to start getting rid of.

Venezuela just reelected their president and I think the people of Venezuela know what is good for them.

How arrogant we are. And how it was a Democratic President who made these ignorant statements.

[Cleita]

132. Sorry our President is behind the times in South American policy.

The Venezuelan people have freely elected Chavez so I do believe their future is in their hands. He's got to stop listening to the old school Monroe Doctrine advocates. It's not practical nor prudent in today's South America.

[byeya]

134. CELAC: Will it be able to sustain itself?

33 Latin American and Caribbean heads of state gathered in Caracas, Venezuela for the first summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). The topic: increased regional integration that excludes the United States and Canada. While the often cited Bolivarian vision of Latin American unity, it remains tenuous because very real differences among CELAC members threaten a functional regional organization.

[Bacchus4.0]

137. The DU chavistas are furious too n/t

s

[limpyhobbler]

160. "But he did say U.S. policy was aimed at ensuring "freedom" in Venezuela."

"Freedom" = "bow down and obey the 1% y'all."

[limpyhobbler]

161. USA loves authoritarian regimes in Bahrain, Yemen, Qatar, etc.

"freedom" = shooting union organizers and the death penalty for calling the King a fat ass.

[Doctor_J]

163. I am still waiting for the now-free-to-act-like-a-Dem Obama to show up

when is that scheduled?

[Zorra]

175. Maybe mañana, amigo, maybe mañana. nt

[Zorro]

165. Hugo's cancer has reportedly metastized into his bones

http://www.abc.es/internacional/20121129/abci-chavez-vuelve-reproducir-tumor-201211282101.html