Bush Says U.S.-Colombia Trade Deal Can Counter Chavez (Update1)

[Joanne98]

Source: Bloomberg

March 12 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said passage of a free-trade agreement with Colombia is ``pivotal'' to U.S. interests, in part to counter the influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

``We would cripple our influence in the region'' if Congress fails to approve the accord, Bush said in an address to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington. ``If the U.S. turns its back on its friends in Colombia, this will set back our cause far more than any Latin American dictator can hope to achieve.''

Bush said Chavez has praised terrorists in ``the latest step in a disturbing pattern of provocative behavior.

``As it tries to expand its influence in Latin America, the regime claims to promote social justice,'' Bush said. ``In truth, its agenda amounts to little more than empty promises and a thirst for power.''



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a7EySPmInS8Q&refer=latin_america

---

Any Ohio Republicans who vote for this trade agreement will be FIRED!

[texastoast]

1. "empty promises and a thirst for power"

Look in the mirror, dick Bush.

The U.S.'s "friends in Columbia" are those that enable the oil companies to continue the rape and pillage.

I LOATHE that little chimp.

[WinkyDink]

64. its agenda amounts to little more than empty promises and a thirst for power: Bush ALWAYS reveals

himself.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

[AndyA]

2. "In truth, its agenda amounts to little more than empty promises and a thirst for power."

I'm confused. Was Bush talking about his agenda, or some country in Latin Americas? :shrug:

It's all the same, if you ask me.

[judasdisney]

3. Hitler knew

When Bush accuses Chavez of "empty promises & a thirst for power" that's either the psychological phenomenon of "projection" -- or the strategy of a sociopath to accuse your enemies first of what you're doing yourself.

As Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:


"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." : Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 197, 14th Edition.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Welcome to DU.

In my library, I have the first English publication of Mein Kampf. I keep it handy for quick reference. Thanks for your passage. It's one of my oft-used quotations.

[Judi Lynn]

10. That's a completely useful quote. So creepy. Saving it for future reference. Thanks. n/t

[Zorra]

16. Interesting. Leo Strauss and Hitler seem to have a lot in common.

Make no mistake - both of them are ideological guiding lights for the neocons.

"....just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us, it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right – fascist, authoritarian, imperial – is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity." - Leo Strauss, 1933

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
snip---
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

[AndyA]

38. OK, now you're confusing me again.

I thought George Bush WAS Adolf Hilter!

He acts just like him.

:sarcasm:

(Thought I'd better add the sarcasm icon, for those smilie challenged DUers.)

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Judi Lynn]

5. Everyone knows Bush's administration concocted the violent coup on Chavez in 2004.

We also know he has dumped MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of U.S. taxpayers' hard-earned money into the coffers of the wealthy Venezuelan oligarchy opposition groups, and has pressured the boot-licking media into serving as his bull-horn on Latin American matters, a region which absolutely despises him.

Just look back down the road at his appalling trip to Latin America, in which he was protested at every single stop he made. Colombia is his only ally, and that's because he has bought Uribe.

[Tempest]

33. Oh no, Judi

It was just a coincidence U.S. military advisors met with the coup planners up to the day of the coup attempt.

And it was just a coincidence Bush sent money to the coup planners weeks before the coup.

Just like it was a coincidence U.S. military advisors and planes were sitting at the airport the day of the coup.

All just one big coincidence.

[Judi Lynn]

91. Very interesting too, Tempest, that people in the crowd around Miraflores, while waiting for the

scum oligarchy to let Hugo Chavez go so he could continue doing the job they elected him to do, told the cameras of the filming crew documenting the situation that they knew the C.I.A. was responsible for this whole filthy event.

Even people in the street in Caracas knew, BEFORE Hugo Chavez had been released by his captors.

Don't forget, it has been admitted that U.S. Navy ships were used to provide info., as well. Here's one of many sources which describes this ugly scheme:

May 6, 2002, 12:00 PM PDT (FTW) -- President Hugo Chavez is once again at the helm of the Venezuelan government. He returned to power just two days after he was arrested April 12 in the wake of a coup d’etat organized and perpetrated by political and military opponents. The apparent coup leader, Pedro Carmona, held the office for less than 48 hours. It has been widely reported the U.S. military provided support to anti-Chavez factions during the coup, and State Department and other U.S. officials met with coup organizers in the months and weeks leading to Chavez’s ouster.

As early as last June, "American military attaches had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup," wrote Britain’s the Guardian newspaper on April 29. Quoting Wayne Madsen, a former Naval and National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence officer who is now an investigative journalist, the paper reported U.S. Navy ships provided signals intelligence and communications jamming support to the Venezuelan military as the coup against Chavez unfolded.

"The NSA supported the coup using personnel attached to the U.S. Southern Command's Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-E) in Key West, Fla.," wrote Madsen and Richard M. Bennett on the Intel Briefing website. "NSA's Spanish-language linguists and signals interception operators in Key West; Sabana Seca on Puerto Rico and the Regional Security Operating Center (RSOC) in Medina, Texas also assisted in providing communications intelligence to U.S. military and national command authorities on the progress of the coup d'etat.
(snip)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/050702_miracle.html

[Pavulon]

37. Actually that would come

from director of operations, or a group of people who work for him. Like all presidents since post ww2 Bush would have approved a CIA operation in Venezuela. That is what we do. We stack the deck in our favor.

A common practice. Bush is not smart enough to drive that operation.

Now why chavez was not shot in the head is a great question. Many of our actions end in the coup backer killing the person he ousted.

However we do tend to screw up.

Wait 30 years for foia and we can find out for sure, until then your GUESS is as good as mine.

One thing is for sure Chavez is making out like a bandit with oil up. Maybe that coup went the way they wanted after all?

[ronnie624]

54. You're right Pavulon.

The U.S. government has a long history of committing crimes against other nations. The Bush administration's policies with regard to Latin America, are simply a continuation of past wrongs.

I'll bet you wish you had something more with which to attack Chavez, than your silly canard about oil prices.

[Pavulon]

78. There is plenty with which to attack St. Chavez with

however that was not the purpose of the post.

[Peace Patriot]

62. You fail to credit the Venezuelan people, tens of thousands of whom came out

in the streets in the middle of the coup, surrounded Miraflores Palace, and demanded restoration of, a) their Constitution, and b) their elected president. In that order, I might add. Their first concern was the RULE OF LAW. Interesting, huh? For a people whom the Bushites would have us believe have elected and re-elected a "dictator." See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary on the 2002 rightwing coup attempt. Also, the bulk of the military in Venezuela supports democracy and social justice. They have backed the Constitution, election transparency and the Chavez government not only because their ranks are filled with the poor--and many officers are promoted from the poor ranks--but also because the rich oil elite had destroyed the country, and Venezuela was going down. The rich/poor divide was extreme (like it's getting to be here). The oil elite was GIVING AWAY 90% of the country's oil revenues to multinationals, and had utterly neglected education, medical care and other basic social decency for the poor majority, infrastructure development, local manufacturing, critically needed land reform, and regional cooperation and development, in their selfish, pampered, insulated, egocentric greed. Chavez is not just a leftist--he is a nationalist and a regionalist. The country now has a 10% growth rate, with the most growth in the private sector, and the region is also benefiting from Chavez policy (for instance, Venezuela's help to bail Argentina out of the World Bank debt). What did the oil elite do for the country--besides wreck it to begin with? An oil professionals's strike, to cripple their own country's economy, and topple the ELECTED government! A U.S.-funded recall election (which Chavez won handily). A U.S.-backed violent coup attempt.

Selfish, to the core. So, when they kidnapped Chavez, and suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, both the military AND the people said, "No way!" And if they had killed Chavez in that circumstance, they all would have been strung up from the nearest lampposts.

I don't doubt that there are Byzantine goings on in Bush Junta policy in South America. We can see "tips of the iceberg" of that all over the continent. And we really need to separate U.S. interests--that is, the interests of this country and its people--from the interests of the Bush Cartel, when we consider any policy. The "banditry" going on in the oil market benefits the Bush Cartel, Exxon Mobil et al, and the super-rich--as well as benefiting the poor of Venezuela and South America (wherever the people who have oil have managed to elect leftist governments, which is almost everywhere except Colombia). The Bushites' focus on the Middle East (slaughter of 1.2 million innocent Iraqis to get their oil) has distracted them from South America, and has taken all our money (to the 7th generation) and all our resources (military and otherwise) to accomplish exactly nothing, except fattening the war profiteers. The moment we are gone, Iraq--or the three parts of Iraq--will rip up the oil contracts that the Bushites forced upon them, and that will be that. One trillion dollars (and counting) and millions of lives, including the tens of thousands of dead and wounded U.S. soldiers--of no benefit even to Exxon Mobil & co. (so they can gouge us some more).

So now these fuckers want an Oil War in South America. And you can be sure that there is a cauldron of evil boiling beneath everything we can see on the surface--the steam of Bushite machinations in the southern hemisphere. The kneecapping of Chile, for instance, to keep Venezuela off the UN Security Council. The biofuels deal with Brazil. The monstrous arming of Colombia. The use of the U.S. 'war on drugs' to favor the BIG drug lords (and kill peasants, union leaders and leftists). That "suitcase full of money" CIA caper out of Miami--trying to "divide and conquer" Venezuela-Argentina (didn't work). The Bush/U.S. backing of the white separatists in Bolivia (a truly dreadful machination). The assassination plot against Chavez, of fairly recent vintage, hatched in the Colombian military (that Uribe had to apologize to Chavez for). And the recent U.S. military-supported murder of the FARC guerrilla who was negotiating with the presidents of Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and France, to release more hostages and establish conditions for peace talks in that 40+ year civil war.

As I said, the "tips of the iceberg" of Bushite skulduggery are there, for those with eyes to see. But I don't think NOT killing Chavez in 2002 (for their own murky reasons--oil profiteering?) was one of them. I think Chavez's survival of the coup was the result of the military and the people overwhelmingly supporting the Constitution and the elected government. You can see what cowardly, scurrying rats these coupsters were, in "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." The Bush/USAID-NED, Penn & Schoen and assorted rightwing propaganda experts have since tried to clean up the image of the fascists in Venezuela (with their U.S.-funded and organized rightwing "student movement"). But the bottom line is that the fascists in South America are a small minority, who have totally fucked up and betrayed their own countries, and, if the South Americans can hang onto the democracies they have created, the fascists will never be in power again.

The events that are revealed in "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"--the defeat of a fascist coup, peacefully, by people power--have inspired all of Latin America. They are both the product of, and a continued inspiration for, an awesome grass roots social justice movement that is sweeping the continent. No amount of CIA/Bushite dirty tricks, psyops and black ops, can defeat it. They can kill or topple individual leaders. They can't kill everybody. And they can't easily destroy democracy, now that is has a strong foothold. See my post, below, about what I believe is Rumsfeld's plan to unravel these democratic gains in South America, through the back door in Bolivia. I don't think he (and Exxon Mobil et al) will succeed, but it is well to be prepared for it.

[Pavulon]

80. Kidnapped != double tap

Most coups we have "acknowledged" through foia end in the instant death of the leader deposed. We have botched coups before, but someone could have just shot him in the head

Your OPINION is just that until foia info is released stating otherwise. There is nothing in the open that proves US involvement.

Why is arming colombia "monstrous" and Venezuela's air superiority fighter deal ok? Because a fat guy in a red shirt says so?

No matter who is elected the us WILL continue to influence foreign policy of other nations through the CIA.

FARC guys are fair covert ops targets, they kill and hold americans hostage, that makes them subject to the same from US. However the OVERT action is uncalled for. Black bagging kidnappers quietly is standard fare. If it hit the press someone screwed up.

And your 1.2 million number is statistically unsound as the sample size was tiny and not stratified properly for a country with 21 million people.

the iraqi body count site is a source for real numbers.

[Peace Patriot]

63. The U.S.-backed coup was in 2002. The U.S.-funded recall election was in 2004.

And Chavez won it, with something like 60% of the vote.

And, why, you may ask, is our tax money being used to fund a recall election in another country, and, indeed, to fund rightwing groups all over South America?

Because all the rich fascists in South America have is money--our money, and money they've stolen from the poor majority. They are just like the fascists here. Their ideas are not persuasive. Their rule is utter mismanagement for the sake of enriching the few. They ally themselves with global corporate predators. They are traitors to their own people. And--like here as well--they can only achieve power through stolen elections or force.

Really, you could almost say that the entire difference between South America and the U.S. today is election transparency. The South Americans have achieved it. And we have lost it. Thus, they are able to elect good, responsible, accountable, representative, leftist governments--all over the continent--and we get Bush and Cheney.

In Venezuela, for instance, they have electronic voting, but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are counted--and they hand-count a whopping 55% of the votes as a check on machine fraud. Here, we now have electronic voting, all over the country, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--owned and controlled by RIGHTWING BUSHITE CORPORATIONS, and we hand-count ZERO votes--I repeat, ZERO votes--in many states, and a very inadequate 1% in the best of states, as a check on machine fraud.

You wonder why we have Bush/Cheney, a war that 70% of us don't want, and a Congress with a 22% approval rating, that funds and escalates an unjust war, and won't even enforce our laws against torture and domestic spying? You wonder why our Constitution is in shreds, and our economy is fast moving toward Great Depression II--a deliberately INDUCED Depression, a Depression that could have been prevented just by SLIGHTLY LESS thievery by the super-rich and the war profiteers?

That's the purpose and design of non-transparent vote counting. That's what it's for. That's what is has done. Fucked. Us. Over.

Meanwhile, South America has the leaders they want, the leaders they need, and the leaders they ELECTED--in most countries. Leaders who see to the interests of their people, who consider the good of the whole.

And they didn't get transparent elections by magic. They WORKED for it. They organized at the grass roots level, and accomplished it. And that's what WE must do as well.

[Judi Lynn]

68. Thanks for the reminder. It should help me keep that coup date straight. I've had trouble with it.

Appreciated your comments on election transparency. Did you ever hear, by the way, that Ken Blackwell, REFUSED INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVERS?

Just ran across that little publicized fact:

International election observers were barred from the polls in Ohio<37><38> by then Republican Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Blackwell's office argues this was the correct interpretation of Ohio law.

Found that ort in this Wikipedia on the 2004 Presidential election:

Points of controversy

• There is no individual federal agency with direct regulatory authority of the U.S. voting machine industry.<26> However the Election Assistance Commission has full regulatory authority over federal testing and certification processes, as well as an influential advisory role in certain voting industry matters.<27> Further oversight authority belongs to the Government Accountability Office, regularly investigating voting system related issues.<28>
  
  
• The former president of Diebold Election Systems (Bob Urosevich) and the vice president of customer support at ES&S (Todd Urosevich)<29> are brothers.<30>
  
  
• Walden O'Dell the former CEO of Diebold (the parent company of voting machine manufacturer Diebold Election Systems) was an active fundraiser for George W. Bush's re-election campaign and wrote in a fund-raising letter dated August 13, 2003, that he was committed "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."<31>
  
  
• Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates,<32><33> served as the chairman of ES&S in the early 1990's when it operated under the name American Information Systems Inc. (AIS).<34> ES&S voting machines tabulated 85 percent of the votes cast in Hagel’s 2002 and 1996 election races. In 2003 Hagel disclosed a financial stake in McCarthy Group Inc., the holding company of ES&S.<34>
  
  
• Global Election Systems, which purchased by Diebold Election Systems and developed the core technology behind the companies voting machines and voter registration system, employed five convicted felons as consultants and developers.<35>
  
  
• Jeff Dean, a former Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold, had previously been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree. Bev Harris reports Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold Election Systems,<36> though Diebold has disputed the consulting relationship.<35> Dean was convicted of theft via "alteration of records in the computerized accounting system" using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.<36>
  
  
• International election observers were barred from the polls in Ohio<37><38> by then Republican Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Blackwell's office argues this was the correct interpretation of Ohio law.<38>
  
  
• California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertified all Diebold Election Systems touch-screen voting machines due to computer-science reports released detailing design and security concerns.<39><40>
  
  
• 30% of all U.S. votes cast in the 2004 election will be cast on direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine, which do not print individual paper records of each vote.<41>
  
  
• Numerous statistical analysis showed "discrepancy in the number of votes Bush received in counties that used the touch-screen machines and counties that used other types of voting equipment" as well as discrepancies with exit polls, favoring President George W. Bush.<42><43><44><45><46><47><48><49>
  
  
• The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the brother of President George W. Bush.<50>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

[BearSquirrel2]

6. Or ...

Or ... we could sit down and talk to Chavez and get him to pump more oil from his state run oil company. After all, this guy was giving out free fuel oil.

[texastoast]

8. What?! And pay just $.12 a gallon for gas?

Damned socialists.

:sarcasm:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

[Judi Lynn]

11. The arrangement is for discounted oil prices. It's been that way for years. n/t

[Doctor Cynic]

7. Bush needs to find cheaper coke.

[FightTheRight89]

9. I think we could use some friends in South America.

Why shouldn't we counter Hugo Chavez? Maybe a better negotiated free trade agreement would be better, but still.

[Judi Lynn]

12. You get better friends when you stop trying to overthrow them, or assassinate them, or destabilize

their governments. Easy to grasp.

[FightTheRight89]

13. Yeah...

Your point?

[dipsydoodle]

25. Well here's a points sunshine

U.S. Interventions in Latin America

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

Enough for you ?

[FightTheRight89]

27. I suppose over the years, we could have been nicer.

But these things were in our interest.

[Tempest]

31. And against theirs

Which is why they don't trust us and turned to Chavez.

So don't be surprised when presidents of countries in regions our foreign policy has decimated act in their own best interests.

[FightTheRight89]

34. I guess I'm not surprised.

I never really said I was. But still, we need to make friends, don't we?

[dipsydoodle]

39. Yes indeed

purely selfish interest.

In the same way when the petrodollar is finally dumped by the oil producers the USA will be totally screwed - just selfish interest I suppose.

[Judi Lynn]

90. Really well done list, edwardlindy. It makes an important point to recognize:

1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

Really, really thought-provoking. Thanks.

[Tempest]

30. Which is exactly why Chavez is succeeding where Bush is failing

In creating economic partnerships in South America.

[texastoast]

14. Hugo is using the oil money to take care of his people

What a concept. Bush has enabled the oil companies to take care of the people's money here and give it to the oil companies. Wait! I think we got screwn.

[FightTheRight89]

15. But his rhetoric is very anti-American.

Even if he's a good leader, and does fine things for his people, if he calls the President the devil and aligns himself with people like Alexander Lukashenko and Ahmadinejad - if he's an avowed enemy of the United States, then we must seek to isolate him or risk disaster.

Might I remind you, Hamas does some pretty swell things for the Palestinean people. But they're terrorists nonetheless.

[Tempest]

17. His rhetoric is none of our business

Neither are his associations.

The U.S. associates include dictators who murder political prisoners. Our hands are not clean by any means.

[FightTheRight89]

19. How is it none of our business?

If our President went to another country and called their leader the "Devil", that would certainly be their business. Forming a bloc against the United States - that's our business. Cooperation with terrorist-enablers - that's our business! I don't see how it isn't.

[Tempest]

26. Bush HAS done it

And on more than one occasion.

Chavez is no threat to us. Iran is no threat to us.

Hell son, Bush is more of a threat to us than Chavez and Iran put together.

[FightTheRight89]

35. I don't think that George Bush wants to wipe any countries off the map.

Or is trying to get nuclear weapons to give to terrorists. So no, you're wrong, I'm pretty sure that Iran and Venezuela are greater threats than our own government.

[WinkyDink]

66. Oh, wait; he just stole ancient artifacts, murdered Iraqis, and took over

the oil fields.

[FightTheRight89]

74. 1 for 3

You got the last one right. But he still doesn't want to wipe nations off the map. Still isn't enabling terrorists.

[texastoast]

18. Tut tut, that integrity issue bites us in the ass every time

And the whole world can see our hypocrisy.

You see, Bush is the biggest, arrogant terrorist of all (read devil if you believe in the devil). Any American who is not embarrassed by what he has done (read what we have allowed him to do) is deep off in denial.

The Founding Fathers were terrorists by shrubbie's definition. Had it not been for the original rabble rouser Sam Adams stirring up the commoner colonists, there would have been no Boston Tea Party and no US of A. Hugo and Sam would have gotten along famously.

Hugo has no fear of Bush, and could probably teach him many lessons regarding the phrase "Bring it on."

God, I would love to see that. Just the two of them in the ring.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Since Bush is one big pussy chickenhawk and no patriot by any true measure, he must fit in the tyrant category.

On edit: God bless Natalie Maines. She spoke for many Texans.

[FightTheRight89]

20. Tyrants don't let their terms run out.

Tyrants try to amend the Constitution to let themselves be President for life. Which is what Hugo did, not what Bush did. I'm embarassed by Bush's actions and by what he's done to this country's image, but I strongly disagree with your juxtaposition of the heroes of the American revolution and Hugo Chavez.

[Flanker]

21. Considering that the FF did NOT have term limits

When they wrote the constitution makes your comment self-contradicting.

[FightTheRight89]

22. I should have been more clear...

And divided my message into 2 parts.

Tyrants don't let their term limits run out. Bush isn't trying to hold onto power. Chavez tried, and failed.

IN ADDITION:

I think your comparison of the Founding Fathers with Hugo Chavez in terms of "fighting tyranny" is just silly.

[Flanker]

29. So Bush is not a Tyrant because he is unpopular?

Seriously what? Clinton did not like his term limits ending and campaigned against it, then again he finished with a modicum of popularity.

You see in the real world people talk aboyt tyranny with deathcounts, not with freeper propaganda of "president4life".

[Tempest]

32. Am I reading you correctly?

Clinton did not like his term limits ending and campaigned against it

I would have to see evidence of this.

then again he finished with a modicum of popularity

Clinton left office with a 63% approval rating, the highest in American history. Higher than Reagan's exit approval rating.


Or am I misreading your post?

[Flanker]

52. There you go

PRESIDENT CLINTON: "Shouldn't the people have the right to vote for someone as many times as they want to vote for him?"

Those aren't my words, Senator. They're Ronald Reagan's, who said in 1986 that the term limit on presidents was "a mistake." Now, I wouldn't go as far as President Reagan. I think presidents should be limited to two consecutive terms, then after a time out of office should be able to run again.

Don't worry. I know I won't be running for president again. It takes too long to change the Constitution, and I don't believe in human cloning! But in the future, our country might face a crisis that a former president is uniquely qualified to help solve. The American public should have that option.

As for you, senator, you can run again. Or you could give the other Senator Dole a shot!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/06/60minutes/clintondole/main557364.shtml

Let me break it down even more, popular presidents want to end term limits, unpopular presidents (GWB) hide behind it.

So is Clinton now a tyrant to you?

[FightTheRight89]

53. Uhhhhh no.

He didn't try to make himself President for life.

[Judi Lynn]

58. Bush's only South American ally, Alvaro Uribe is working on getting an unprecidented 3rd term,

soon after getting his unprecidented 2nd term. I doubt we'll hear these fascists throwing fits about this. He is, after all, a right-wing death-squad loving _Bush puppet.

Colombia President Allies Submit Petitions For 3rd Term Referendum
3-12-08 7:59 PM EDT

BOGOTA -(Dow Jones)- A Colombian political party allied with President Alvaro Uribe, 55, has submitted to the election authority a petition with about 260,000 signatures supporting a referendum to change the constitution and allow the president to run for a third consecutive term in 2010.

Luis Guillermo Giraldo, the secretary of the Party for National Unity, started gathering the signatures in November as part of a private initiative, but his party decided to join him in February.

The law requires only 140,000 valid signatures, or 0.5% of all the country's voters, to start the long process for a referendum.

After the election authority verifies all the signatures, the party will have to collect 1.4 million new signatures in favor of the referendum. The Congress and the Constitutional Court will have approve the move before the referendum is placed on the ballot.

Uribe allies control both houses of Colombia's Congress.

More:
http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200803121959DOWJONESDJONLINE001060_univ.xml

[FightTheRight89]

If you read the article...

You would have noticed it wasn't Uribe, it was his allies, and he said he'd only stay in office were there an emergency.

[Judi Lynn]

61. The emergency should be for Mr. Death Squad to get out of government. n/t

[FightTheRight89]

60. If you read the article...

You would have noticed it wasn't Uribe, it was his allies, and he said he'd only stay in office were there an emergency.

[Peace Patriot]

70. Our own FDR ran for and won FOUR terms in office, and died in his fourth term.

He was "president for life." And the rightwing called him a "dictator," too. Then it was the rightwing, during the 1950s, who mounted the campaign to put a 2-term limit on our president, and rammed it through, because they didn't ever want the left to have that much time to undo their fascist economic thievery, enslavement of the work force, entrenchment in the courts, and mismanagement of the country to favor the rich, ever again. Most of our Founders opposed term limits on the president, and did NOT include it in the Constitution. They considered it undemocratic. And many democratic governments do not have a term limit on the president today.

What the heck is wrong with RUNNING FOR and getting ELECTED TO a third or fourth term? And what the heck is wrong--tyrannical, dictatorial--about ASKING THE PEOPLE TO VOTE ON IT?

That's the the Chavez government did. They PUT IT TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. The lifting of the term limit on the president was contained in a package of changes--69 amendments--that included, for instance, equal rights for gays and women. Venezuela has a particularly rightwing Catholic hierarchy, so the Chavistas probably killed their amendments package right there. A shorter work week. Social security for the informal sector workers (about half the work force). More presidential control of the central bank. It was a long wish list. And who knows what the voters particularly objected to? Many said they were just confused, so they abstained. And the package lost by a narrow margin (50.7% to 49.3%). (Chavez has won his presidential victories by big margins--the latest, in '06, with 63% of the vote, and he enjoys a 70% approval rating. So, basically, 10% of the voters, who are normally pro-Chavez, were confused, or objected to one or more amendments, and abstained or voted no.)

This is "tyranny"? As I said above, the poor need TIME to undo the ravages of the rich. And that certainly is what FDR was doing, and what Chavez is doing. What would FDR have done, if the rightwing had tried to impose term limits in his second term? I think he would have fought it, and would have understood exactly what it was, too--a rightwing effort to undo the New Deal. And what did Chavez do, when this and 68 other ideas were voted down, by a narrow margin? He would have been within his rights to at least question it--to call for a recount--because it was so close. Instead, he immediately acquiesced to the result, and moved on.

This is a "dictator"? FDR was constantly embattled with the rightwing over his power--and constantly sought to INCREASE his power (including, for instance, his attempt to "pack the Supreme Court"*--a rightwing phrase). This did not make him a "tyrant." And I would like to know what Chavez has done that makes HIM one. Name one tyrannical (unlawful, unfair, repressive) action. You can't do anything for the poor, against the forces of what FDR called "organized money," by being weak. And STRENGTH is NOT THE SAME THING as tyranny. FDR said that the forces of "organized money" hated him "and I welcome their hatred." He was up for the fight. So is Chavez. And if you consider "organized money" (read Exxon Mobil) to be the "VICTIM" of "tyranny" by legal, elected, popular, sovereign government and its leaders, then maybe you don't understand a goddamned thing about democracy (or maybe you do--you're just not in favor of it).

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

*("Organized money" got to Congress, and they wouldn't add liberal justices to the Supreme Court, as FDR wanted them to--and which would have been perfectly legal and constitutional, and still is. But FDR's pressure on the Court changed one justice's mind, and thus Social Security was saved from being declared unconstitutional. Had it not been for FDR's "power-mongering" against the dinosaur Court--appointed by the previous regimes who had brought on the Great Depression--we would not have Social Security today. And we might want to file this away for near future use--the Constitution does not specify the number of justices. Nine is an arbitrary number. And Congress is within its rights to add to that number--if we can ever again, in this Diebold darkness, elect a President and a Congress who act in our interest.)

[Judi Lynn]

71. Thanks for pointing out the vital points that are ALWAYS played down.

The truth is always at odds with propaganda, isn't it?

Reading your posts is always FOUND time, as a person always benefits. Can't tell you how helpful they are.

[Pavulon]

84. Man I hate it when people compare FDR to a shit stirring

media whore. Chavez jacks his jaw to bump up his product. FDR is not like Castro, but they both had long terms in office...

FDR did not put a referendum out, in the middle of a WORLD WAR, to allow him infinite access to power.

Please dont compare the two, they are not alike and any one with any historical context would agree.

Why not split out 68 of those great things and vote on them and then have a vote on president 4 life?

[Judi Lynn]

86. Hugo Chavez's people had proposed 33 original items for the referendum.

The Congress added the additional ones until they reached 69, at which time Hugo Chavez suggested they offer two separate occassions to vote so the public would have time to study the first part, then focus on the second. It was not his idea to do it all at once.

You need to take some time out from spewing and bring yourself into focus on what the circumstances were of FDR's adminstration and how the right-wing here treated him.

It would probably offend your considerable sensibilities to know how deeply he was despised by the vicious American right-wing, and how they raged against him even long after he had died.

[Pavulon]

88. Yep, I read

I know how FDR (that man) was perceived in the context of pre ww2 US.

That being said comparing him to Chavez is still an insult, to FDR.

[IggyReed]

87. In what way did Chavez ask for "infinate power"?

He did make a mistake in having too many laws on one bill (although many of the laws were put together because they all had to be in place for the system to function, the laws were connected to one another). However, if you actually READ what the laws were they gave much more power to the people directly than the government. The laws were going to give more power & increased funding to the community councils (who are taking over more and more responsibility from the state), extended the scope of the general public in governmental decision making, wanted to legally recognize different types of property (in addition to private property), was going to extend workers rights to form unions, wanted to facilitate a system of worker self management, etc.

By the way, FDR didn't ask for the referendum because he had many of the powers Chavez was asking the people to vote on. Was FDR any less heavy handed when he announced that he would create more supreme court justices, just to get the New Deal passed? It wasn't like he asked the country to change the laws for him to do it, he announced he would if the New Deal was stalled. He was also already on his third term when the war began, so that didn't have to be voted on anyway.

Comparing the two however isn’t logical. One was president of a world power, who was about to become the dominant financial power in the world and the other is a president who took over a country mired in poverty, no functioning national healthcare or educational system, with a government in the hands of an elite who cared more about international investors than their fellow country men & all of this while being under attack from the world’s military superpower along with the elites who are funded by that same country, attacking it from within.

[Peace Patriot]

93. Castro was not elected. Chavez was--in highly transparent, internationally monitored

elections. Castro has solved the Cuban peoples' problems--daunting problems of poverty and brutal oppression, created by the hideous, U.S.-backed Batista regime--by autocratic rule, and he believes in economic but not political democracy. Chavez is solving the Venezuelan peoples' problems--similar to Cuba's and to many third world countries, poverty and oppression--by means of POLITICAL DEMOCRACY, subjecting himself and his proposals to public referendum. He is a DEMOCRAT--like FDR. In Venezuela's case, the PEOPLE have chosen a mixed socialist/capitalist economy, with a strong component of social justice and also encouragement of maximum citizen participation in government and politics, and they have chosen these policies by their large votes in favor of the Chavez government. FDR achieved power, and exercised power, in the same way--SUBJECT TO THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

There are, in fact, compelling similarities between Chavez and FDR, and almost no similarity between Chavez and Castro, except for identification with the poor majority. And you don't seem to realize, Pavulon, that FDR was called a COMMUNIST by the frothing-at-the-mouth rightwing robber barons, for merely proposing that we, as a people, COLLECTIVELY create a national pension plan for the elderly, paid for by...us! The workers. Reaganites and Bushites STILL consider this and other New Deal programs to be COMMUNISM, and they have been trying to destroy Social Security, or privatize and profit from it, since it was created, and to this day!

In truth, measures such as Social Security are socialist--NOT communist. They are democratically achieved social justice measures, as opposed to programs imposed by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" (communist leaders/autocrats). And this example--Social Security--is EXACTLY the kind of measure that Chavez has proposed and implemented, and he has done so in exactly the same way that we here in the U.S., with FDR as president, did it. Through VOTING--our votes for FDR and for legislators who voted for his programs.

The rightwing in Venezuela--these self-pampered traitors to their own country, who GAVE AWAY 90% of the country's oil profits to multinational corporations, and completely mismanaged the country for decades--and the rightwing Bushites, traitors to OUR country, selling us out to Exxon Mobil and Saudi Arabia--use all the same epithets against Chavez as the same parties used against FDR, and with exactly the same venom: communist, dictator, tyrant--and for exactly the same reason. They. Don't. Believe. In. Democracy. They want all the money and all the power for themselves, and they don't give a fuck what happens to anybody else!

You keep saying dictator, Castro, dictator, Castro, ad nauseum--to slander Chavez. And you just plain lie about what Chavez has proposed. How is RUNNING FOR and GETTING ELECTED TO the office of president of Venezuela an attempt to gain "infinite access to power"? How is PUTTING removal of the term limit on the president and other measures TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE an attempt to gain "infinite access to power"?

If Chavez wanted "infinite access to power," he would do what his rightwing opposition did in 2002--SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, THE COURTS AND ALL CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DECLARE HIMSELF THE "DICTATOR," AS THEY DID! That's what THEY did--the fascist elite. Not Chavez. He has never done that, never threatened to do that, and has never shown the slightest indication that that is what he wants--unlawful power.

You are lying, Pavulon! Chavez has run a scrupulously lawful, beneficial government for ten years. He is not a dictator. He is not a tyrant. He is not a Castro-like autocrat. He has bowed to the will of the people, whether they've favored him or not--and they have mostly favored him, of their own free wills, in a free society, with transparent elections. And, LIKE Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he has sought every legal, Constitutional power that he can rightfully achieve, to solve an economic disaster created by the rich elite--millions of people with no jobs, no medical care, living on starvation rations, in hovels and shantytowns, unable to afford shoes for their children's feet, and, in Venezuela's case, with no education, no training, no hope. The legacy of the rich and their greed!

Chavez is in fact PREVENTING a bloody revolution and the rise of real "dictators of the proletariat" to power--and the rich and the greedy in South America ought to be grateful to him. Considering what they've done--the heinous crimes they have committed--they are lucky that the poor are not slitting their throats. It was just the kind of ungodly greed and callousness, that they have shown, that brought on the guillotines in the French Revolution. But no, the poor of South America want FAIRNESS. They want DEMOCRACY. They want leaders who see to their vastly neglected interests, and who can help create a good society for EVERYONE.

You fail to credit them, Pavulon. It is THEY who have elected Chavez. It is THEIR social movement that did it. Peacefully, democratically, fairly. It is THEY who came out into the streets and restored their Constitution and the their elected government during the 2002 coup attempt. It is THEY to whom Chavez owes his power. Not the other way around. The Chavez government is not something that Chavez imposed on them. THEY chose it. And that is exactly what happened here, during FDR's terms. The people chose great, visionary reforms, to overcome the greed and irresponsibility of the rich, who had nearly destroyed their country.

And that is NOT what happened in Cuba--a more laid back (Cuban) model of Stalinism (rule by strongman), following a bloody revolution against a heinous, fascist regime, with the Cubans lucking out that Castro didn't go insane with power like Stalin did. Venezuela has a built-in barrier against strongmen and autocrats, and the grave threat posed when they go insane, and it is called DEMOCRACY. And Venezuelans have a particularly sturdy version of it, with a RECALL provision for the president. And guess what happened, when the Bush/U.S. funded a recall against Chavez? He won it with 60% of the vote!

Are you saying that Venezuelans voted for a "dictator" THREE times? In Chavez's initial election, in the recall election, and in his re-election in 2006 (with 63% of the vote)? What stupid people! You'd think they would have figured out by now, how oppressed they are, and what hell it is to have schools, and literacy classes, and university educations, and medical care, and loans for small business, and land reform, and low cost housing, and new bridges and roads, and flood control, and a 10% growth rate, with the biggest growth in the private sector, and a decent, well-run government. What tyranny!

Funny thing, how this "tyrant" permitted the voters to put some curbs on his reforms, in the recent referendum. But, according to you, that is just MORE evidence that Chavez is a "dictator."

Same rightwing garbage they used against FDR--twisted, self-serving lies. When the left is strong, it's "tyranny." And when the right loots the country, shoots protesters, steals elections, grabs all the land, and suspends the Constitution, the legislature, the courts and all civil rights, that's what...centrism?

You worry me, Pavulon. Because I presume that you are a citizen and a voter here. And you don't know what democracy is. You don't recognize it. You think that the poor MAJORITY voting in a president who attends to THEIR interests and the good of the country--as U.S. voters did with FDR, and Venezuelan voters did with Chavez--is somehow like Castro in Cuba. You don't see the difference between elected government and autocratic government, except when it suits your purpose. You want to laud FDR and demonize Chavez. And yet the rightwing demonized FDR, during that era (and are still doing it) just as your are demonizing Chavez. Calling an elected president a "dictator." Calling someone who wants a third (or fourth) term in office--just as FDR did--a "dictator." Calling someone who holds power by consent of the people--and who continues to enjoy huge popularity, even when he makes mistakes--a "dictator." Calling someone who is benefiting the people a "dictator." Or--when you can't maintain this any more, in the face of the facts--a "wannabe dictator."

And still you can't point to a single action of Hugo Chavez that has been unlawful, repressive, unfair or harmful to anyone. You going to play the "terrorist" card now, like Bush, because Chavez wants peace in Colombia's 40+ year civil war, Venezuela's neighbor to the south? They couldn't make "Chavez the dictator" stick, and couldn't break up the strong economic and political alliances he has formed with other democratic leaders in South America. So now it's "Chavez the terrorist," or "Chavez the drug dealer." Their bus boy Uribe in Colombia (the go-to guy for the Medellin Cartel, in his early career, now the go-to guy for the Bush Cartel) BOMBS and invades Ecuador and kills the FARC hostage negotiator, and...somehow...Chavez is the "aggressor." They switch lies as it suits them: WMDs, to "WMD program related activities" to 'Iraqi freedom." As one lie passes into the dustbin of yesterday's "talking points"--discredited, disproven--they invent another. And all these lies about Chavez are undergoing the same process--discarded as they are disproven, and the next lie trotted out.

You are a bit behind the curve. Tell us about "Chavez the terrorist." All of South America is laughing at "dictator" (and quite a few North Americans as well). So, defend the latest Bushite tripe. Is Chavez a "terrorist," Pavulon? Got some evidence that wasn't cooked up by the guys who brought us the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries, in the "Office of Special Plans"?

[Tempest]

28. You are distorting the facts

And repeating the rightwing lie about the Constitutional change proposed.

I hope JudyLynn's eye catches this thread. She'll bombard you with facts and set you straight. I personally don't have the patience for someone who regurgitates from the rightwing playbook.

[FightTheRight89]

36. You're making no sense.

But yeah, let's wait for "Master of Facts" JudyLynn to enter the picture.

[IggyReed]

77. HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!

For the last damn time, could people please stop saying this right wing talking point? He put the idea up in a public referendum. The people of Venezuela were asked to vote if they wanted to change THEIR constitution to allow him or anyone else to run for more than two terms (which is allowed in France, the UK, Bush's ally in Australia Howard just got done with his FOURTH term).

Uribe in Colombia is attempting a third term, do you hear the corporate press here warning about the dangers to Colombian democracy?

Also, the US has a right to try and convince people to adopt their (failed) economic and social polices. They have no right to fund groups in other countries trying to undermine democracies in favor of US investors and elites. This is only justified if you're ok with China or Iran doing it here, which I’m sure you’re not. So stop using reasoning for others you wouldn’t accept for yourself.

Chavez is not “aligned” with Iran, they have a common interest in that they have large deposits of oil and, as a result, are under attack from the US. So whatever alliance they have is for that reason. Chavez IS aligned with democracies in the region, like Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina. They, along with Venezuela, are democratic in ways that we could only dream of here and they are all rejecting our failed economic policies in the region. If the US can’t get countries to VOLLUNTARILY adopt their policies they should, for once, respect democracy and adjust. If the US cannot change their economic system to match a changing reality they will over time become more an more ideologically rigid (which has doomed countless countries in the past) and will eventually crumble as a result.

Is there any other talking points you believe in? Is Chavez also going after the free press according to you? Another fact-less charge.

[Judi Lynn]

92. Really appreciate your informed comments on this thread.

Needless to say, people with your ability to focus on and grasp information, evaluate it, and retain it, don't get confused and fall into the propaganda black holes which appear to claim the slow ones!

[Peace Patriot]

59. When Rafael Correa--who was running for president of Ecuador when Chavez...

...called Bush "the Devil"--was asked about Chavez's remark, Correa replied, "It's an insult to the Devil." He had been running neck and neck with a rich, rightwing banana magnate. Correa's numbers soared, and he won the election with 60% of the vote. I don't know for sure if his humorous reply and his siding with Chavez was responsible for his big win, but it certainly didn't hurt.

When the Bushites sent word to South American leaders that they must "isolate" Chavez, Nestor Kirchner, President of Argentina, said, "But he's my brother!"

Chavez has MANY friends among the leaders of South America, including close, friendly, working with relationships with the presidents of Ecuador, Argentina (the current president as well--Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner), Bolivia, Brazil and Nicaragua, and good relations with other democratic, leftist leaders (Uruguay, Chile). THEY don't consider Chavez a "dictator" or a "tyrant" or any of this crap we hear from Bushites and corporate 'news' monopolies, because they know the facts--that Chavez has run a scrupulously lawful, beneficial government for ten years, elected and reelected by the Venezuelan people, in elections that put our own to shame for their transparency.

Venezuela is a member of OPEC (as is Ecuador). Chavez has not only a right, but a duty, to establish and maintain relations with countries that may benefit his people, no matter what he thinks of their policies. Chavez, for instance, supports gay and women's rights, strong provisions for which were included in the Constitutional amendments that his government recently proposed to the voters (which were narrowly defeated---50.7% to 49.3%--not too surprising in a Catholic country, with rightwing prelates--but a bold progressive move by Chavez to even propose it). In Iran, gays are outlawed, and women are not quite as repressed as in Saudi Arabia, but still are second class citizens. Does Chavez's foreign relations policy of NOT demonizing Iran mean that he endorses Iran's social policy? Absolutely not. And maybe Venezuela can have some influence on these issues in Iran, to bring them out of their U.S.-induced paranoia and isolation (which goes way back to U.S. destruction of Iran's democracy in 1954, and installation of the horrible Shah of Iran, for 25 years of torture and brutal repression--which was the reason that the Iranian people--the most potentially progressive people in the Middle East--turned to the mullahs.) In any case, Bush's policy of demonizing Iran and threatening and scheming to nuke them, to steal their oil, HAS FAILED. Iran is not Iraq. It is NOT a dictatorship. It is NOT territorially aggressive. It is well defended and has many friends (including China--a decisive one, in stopping Bush's aggressive plans). And its antagonism toward Israel (which supported the coup in 1954) and backwards social policy COULD BE handled DIPLOMATICALLY, IF our own leadership wasn't insanely greedy for oil and power over others.

The Bush Junta and collusive Democrats have made everything worse--far worse--for the U.S. in the Middle East, and in our own hemisphere. In South America, where democracy is at last SUCCEEDING--in Venezuela and nearly everywhere else--with the election of leftist (majorityist) governments, who are pursuing goals of social justice and regional self-determination--we have many natural friends, almost everybody on the continent. They don't hate the American people. They hate Bush and associated global corporate predators who have been brutally exploiting them for decades. The U.S. government has imposed fascist dictatorships on South America--with U.S.-based corporate predators like Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum, Drummond Coal, Chiquita, Bechtel, Monsanto and others stealing their resources, and using brutal, murderous methods against local labor, followed by U.S.-dominated "free trade" and World Bank loan sharks. And the South Americans have had it with this. They have worked long and hard on developing democratic institutions--such as transparent elections--to overcome it. And this is what has to happen in the Middle East, and HERE--for all of us to achieve world peace and fairness for the poor and the working classes. We ALL need to overthrow the global corporations who profit from war and poverty.

Here's what the French foreign minister said about the U.S. yesterday...

"... whoever succeeds President Bush in the White House will have to restore the United States' battered image and standing overseas, the International Herald Tribune reported.

"Speaking at the launch of a Forum for New Diplomacy in Paris, Kouchner said the United States will never be the country it was before the Bush presidency and will have to work to repair its reputation, especially since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3224483

Kouchner was the one working with the Presidents of Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina to obtain releases of hostages from the FARC leftist guerrillas in Colombia, whose 40+ year war on union leaders and leftists the Bush Junta has stoked with $5 billion in military aid. These presidents were trying to broker a peace--which the Bush Junta just sabotaged by providing U.S. ordinance and surveillance (and god knows what else) to Colombia, to KILL the chief FARC hostage negotiator. It was events like this that Kouchner was speaking of. The U.S. wants, a) oil, and b) war. And the whole world knows it.

And I am convinced that the Bushites are going to cause a lot more trouble in South America before the year is out. Take a gander at this (and read between the lines a bit):

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Among other things, Rumsfeld urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America. Whatever does he mean?

I think he means not only the U.S. military support of Colombia in stopping efforts toward peace in their civil war, but also U.S. military intervention in support of fascist thugs planning coups within leftist democracies, especially the ones with lots of oil (Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia), and I expect the trouble to begin in Bolivia, where the Bushites are funding and organizing a white-racist separatist movement, to split off the gas/oil rich provinces from the central government of Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia (in a largely indigenous country), to deny benefit of those resources to the poor majority. The white separatists will likely declare their "independence" in May, and ask for Bush/U.S. support, possibly including U.S. boots on the ground. Rumsfeld & co. (Exxon Mobil et al) will thus have fascist launching pads for causing trouble in other South American countries (Colombia and separatist Bolivia). I don't think they will succeed in this nefarious scheme, but they can cause a lot of suffering and chaos in the course of failing, as we know. They want to bring the Oil War home to our hemisphere--and I think they also want to toss this live hand grenade at the Democrats during the presidential election in November.

Crazy? Yeah, invading Iraq was crazy. Now they want to compound their crime by invading South America, because THEY CAN'T WIN TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS THERE--no matter how much USAID-NED and covert money (our tax money) they pour into rightwing political groups and fascist causes. Just like they can't win transparent elections here. (That's why we don't have transparent elections here.)

[Peace Patriot]

67. Typo correction: I meant to say that "Rumsfeld & co. will thus have **two**

fascist launching pads for causing trouble in other South American countries (Colombia and separatist Bolivia)." In the second to last paragraph. I left out the word **two** (and italicized "fascist" rather than "two").

That section should read: "The white separatists will likely declare their 'independence' in May, and ask for Bush/U.S. support, possibly including U.S. boots on the ground. Rumsfeld & co. (Exxon Mobil et al) will thus have two fascist launching pads for causing trouble in other South American countries (Colombia and separatist Bolivia). I don't think they will succeed in this nefarious scheme...." etc.

[FightTheRight89]

76. Fascist launcing pads?!?!?

Are you out of your mind?!

[Peace Patriot]

79. No, I'm not out of my mind. Rumsfeld is. Or hadn't you noticed? nt

[WinkyDink]

65. Please. Chavez is not Hamas. And the U.S. has no right to interfere with S.A.

Or do you think we ought to own the world?
Hmmmm????

[FightTheRight89]

75. Well I think we should LEAD the world.

My point was not that Chavez is Hamas, but that even bad leaders do good things for their people.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

81. "LEAD" the world huh. If that means killing 1000s in the process as it already has

so be it. I mean supporting fascism apparently is in our "interests" and all that. Just like Mr Bush you should mind your own fucking business and let the people of South America determine their own futures. That whole thing about scary commies hiding under the bushes is not as effective as it once was.

[Joanne98]

23. Bush to send Colombia pact to Congress soon: Schwab

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will send a free trade agreement with Colombia to Congress shortly after the March recess for a vote sometime this year, the top U.S. trade official said on Wednesday.

"Given the calendar and the president's commitment to see a vote on the Colombia FTA this year, it is very clear the president will have to send up the legislation very shortly," U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab told reporters.

However, the Bush administration will make a final attempt to reach agreement with democrats on a "bipartisan path" to bring the pact to the floor for a vote, Schwab said.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have resisted efforts to schedule a vote on the pact because they say Colombia needs to make more progress on labor violence concerns.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWAT00911620080312

---

Get ready to fight this NOW!

[Demeter]

24. Because Poppy Can't Get the Coke Up here Fast Enough

[Judi Lynn]

40. Bush warns collapse of trade deal with Colombia could cripple U.S. influence in South America

Source: Associated Press

Bush warns collapse of trade deal with Colombia could cripple U.S. influence in South America
By Ben Feller
ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:44 p.m. March 12, 2008

WASHINGTON – President Bush warned Congress on Wednesday that failing to approve a trade deal with Colombia would fuel the anti-American regime of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and cast the United States as untrustworthy and impotent across South America.

The intensity of Bush's rhetoric reflected the importance of the deal to him – and the fact that he's fast running out of time to get it done. Democrats have objected that Colombia's government has not done enough to halt violence, protect labor activists and demobilize paramilitary organizations.

“If Congress were to reject the agreement with Colombia, we would validate antagonists in Latin America, who would say that America cannot be trusted to stand by its friends,” Bush said in a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

“We would cripple our influence in the region, and make other nations less likely to cooperate with us in the future,” the president said. “We would betray one of our closest friends in our own backyard.”




Read more: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080312-1444-bush-trade.html

---

Snapshots of _Bush's triumphal tour of Latin America last year:

[Gman]

41. Cast the US as untrustworthy and impotent in Latin America??

a little late to be worried about that now, George.

[villager]

42. Because we haven't "betrayed" anyone in South America before....

n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

43. If we stopped trying to whack their leaders...

...I'd bet opinions would change.;)

[tanyev]

44. I thought we were already generally regarded as untrustworthy and impotent in South America.

Not to mention the rest of the world.

[SharonAnn]

45. Good! We haven't done Latin America any favors over the years.

[silverweb]

46. Good.

All we've done in South and Central America is fuck things up for the people there.

It's long past time our "influence" was rejected and the people freely pursue their own best interests, not ours.

[gerrilea]

47. Great Pictures...shouldn't you send those to the MSM...Bush

really needs to wake up...the world he lives in is sooooo "pretty"...for him...

[Judi Lynn]

57. Isn't it odd how our own corporate media NEVER seem to find the time or space to inform Americans

about the fact people in other countries can't stand him? This is usually something we just have to find out from other sources, usually other countries.

No doubt the next stage is to find ways to control ALL the foreign media, eventually, too! I'd really expect to see that. We know it has happened already, going back to the Nixon machinations in setting up Allende to be defeated in election, then, when that failed, to be removed, and Nixon's butcher puppet Pinochet installed. This was all easily prepared by plowing millions of U.S. tax dollars into the largest paper in Chile, El Mercurio, owned by Augustin Edwards, who still runs it the same way, and, with his son, participates in newspaper management organizations, one in South Florida.

The CIA, through El Mercurio was able to mold and control public perception, disinforming them on Allende, creating paranoia, as Nixon, noted in documents by Richard Helms, went all out to "make the economy scream" in Chile, throwing the country into chaos, turning them against their popular President, then sitting back as Pinochet swept away everything and set in motion his own hideous lethal suppression of all dissent.

El Mercurio spewed anti-Allende crap, praised Pinochet throughout his reign of terror, the tone and content dictated by the U.S.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever the same thing has been repeated throughout Latin America through their own oligarchy-owned newspapers by now.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

48. K & R.

:kick:

[Demeter]

49. He Talks Like This Would Be a Bad Thing

Sorry, George, under you and Darth Cheney the US is no longer the Only Superpower, the Leader of the Free World, or even the Shining City on the Hill.

We have become Mordor, and you are Saruman, the broken wizard.



Besides, the US has NEVER had a positive influence on our neighbors to the South. Didn't you read any of those history books when you were in your Ivy League college?

[Doctor_J]

50. What influence?

We forcibly removed Hugo from office once, and now he's back mocking * in public.

:eyes:

[ronnie624]

55. “We would betray one of our closest friends

in our own backyard.”

It would seem rather odd to me, if another country referred to the U.S. as its "backyard". Use of the term in this context implies ownership, or a right to exercise control.

This says much about the attitude of the U.S. government, regarding other nations.

As always, your photos are fascinating.

[Judi Lynn]

56. Good point. There is that proprietary air. They are in OUR backyard. Creepy, isn't it?

I forgot to include some photos of _Bush's swing through Brazil, where he also attracted similar outpourings of their own appreciation of that great moment in history:

[Bravo Zulu]

51. Mayan Priests Fear Evil Spirits Surround President Bush

Mayan Priests Fear Evil Spirits Surround President Bush

On Sunday, during a tour of South America, President George Bush will be making a stop in Guatemala. Mayan religious and government officials are planning a purification ceremony once he leaves to cleanse the land of the "evil spirits," that he may bring with him during his trip.

The Mayan leaders claim that his persecution of illegal aliens is an insult to their people. They also believe that his provoking of wars and inhumane action across the globe proves that evil spirits will follow him wherever he goes.

One Mayan leader explained that the Mayan Spirit Guides have instructed that this cleansing take place. In the Mayan tradition, anyone who the Spirit Guides deem as evil must be watched closely. That person's actions on their sacred land will stir the spirits of all of their ancestors.

Many of the Mayans believe that if the sprits of their ancestors are disturbed then the spirits will walk among the living until peace can be brought to their land. The only way to appease these spirits is with the purification ceremony that is planned.

The Guatemalan government has agreed to allow the Mayan leaders to plan this, "purification ceremony." The government has also agreed as to locations in which Bush will not be allowed to go during his visit. Bush will not be allowed to walk around any of what would be considered the most sacred of locations

[Judi Lynn]

69. Thanks for the reminder. That's a WONDERFUL response to his toxic presence. n/t

[hunter]

72. Columbian rulers tie their little dinghy to sinking Titanic.

Titanic Cap'n Bunnypants wants to make sure the knots are good and tight.

[Pavulon]

82. In any economic downturn

the us will shed more value from its gdp than the total of most of the nations discussed in this thread. It will still remain 4 times larger than its nearest economy on sheer wealth creation. Japan.

Bad management does not mean the us is sinking.

[hunter]

89. The nation will survive. The empire will fail.

We will look more and more like any other American nation, and less like a "superpower."

[Peace Patriot]

73. Let's be clear about what Bush-designed "free trade" with Colombia will do:

1. Colombia already stands condemned by every human rights group on earth of the torture and hideous murders of thousands of union leaders, small peasant farmers, political leftists, human rights workers and journalists--either directly by Colombian security forces or by rightwing paramilitary death squads with close ties to the government--and they are doing this with impunity, because it is a GOVERNMENT POLICY. "Free trade" will create a "free fire zone" for more killing and for legitimized slave labor. It will endorse past murders, torture and intimidation, and foster more official government contempt for the law and for human rights.

2. It will complete the Bush Junta policy of driving small peasant farmers (the best food producers) off the land--into urban squalor and slave labor--and conversion of farmland to environmentally devastating, corporate biofuel production. This pogrom against small farmers (the U.S. "war on drugs") had favoring of the big drug lords as its first goal. It has done that--and Uribe (the go-to guy for the Medellin Cartel in his early career) and his pals, and the Bush Cartel itself, have profited nicely from it. Cocaine production and distribution to the U.S. and other first world countries is at an all-time high. There is also widespread illicit weapons trafficking--very lucrative--no doubt indirectly fed by the $5 BILLION of our tax money the Bushites have larded on Colombia for GUNS, bullets and all manner of military equipment. But the OTHER goal of the "war on drugs" is to clear these lands for biofuel production and other corporate uses.

3. With a union-free (cuz their all dead) trade pact with Colombia, Donald Rumsfeld & co. can intensify their economic warfare against Venezuela and other leftist democracies, of which Exxon Mobil's recent effort to freeze $12 billion of Venezuela's assets was the opening shot. Exxon Mobil ostensibly objected to Venezuela's 60% share of its own oil--a deal that Norway's Statoil, France's Total, British BP and even Chevron agreed to. But Exxon Mobil's real purpose is economic destabilization in Venezuela, in concert with Rumsfeld's plans to destabilize the Andes region on two fronts--the Venezuela and Ecuador borders with Colombia, and in Bolivia (currently beset with a U.S.-funded white separatist movement that could come to fruition this May). (Bolivia itself has gas and oil, in the provinces that the separatists want to take, and it borders Argentina--where there was a big oil find recently--and both countries are allies of Chavez and Venezuela).

4. We don't know if Rumsfeld can get U.S. boots on the ground in Bolivia (to support the "independence" of Bush "friends and allies" who want to split up the country). I believe that that is his intention. But he also has other forces--including the Colombian military and security forces, the closely tied Colombian rightwing paramilitaries, Blackwater mercenaries (active in Colombia), operatives of various drugs/weapons traffickers, and paramilitaries and militias operating within Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries. And he also no doubt has billions of dollars stolen from us in Iraq with which to purchase whatever he needs for Oil War II: South America. As with the Colombian bombing of Ecuador (killing the FARC hostage negotiator and 20+ others), he can at least get U.S. military cooperation (supplies, support, surveillance), if not a U.S. military intervention. Either way, he means to produce his signature strategy, CHAOS, in the region, to create global corporate predator OPPORTUNITY, to regain control of the rich gas/oil resources (and other resources--minerals, water, forests) first in Bolivia, then in whatever opens up, as a result of the chaos.

Colombia is the launching pad, the fascist haven, the highly militarized tool of the Bushites in this war. That is why "free trade" with Colombia is so important to Bush AND Rumsfeld. It is a major plank of Rumsfeld's recent (Dec 07) op-end in the Washington Post. And he clearly, unequivocally intends this "free trade" deal as AN ACT OF WAR against Venezuela. And so does Bush. See

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

The main differences between this oil war and the war on Iraq are, a) they have to topple DEMOCRACIES in this case (--that's why they keep slandering Chavez as a "dictator"--a 100% lie); and b) the American people are bankrupt, and exhausted by fascist government--so they have to "frame" this war differently, as a "free trade" deal (buying "friends" in South America), as the "war on drugs," and, more recently, as a "war on terrorists" (Colombia's 40+ year war against the poor--calling the Presidents of VENEZUELA and ECUADOR, and, by implication, the presidents of ARGENTINA and FRANCE, for godssakes, terrorist-lovers, because they want to help END Colombia's civil war).

And the Bushites are going to lose this war BECAUSE they are dealing with democracies, in this case--strong democracies with great popular support within their own countries and in the region. But when did that ever stop them from madly pursuing their greed for power and money?

The real Democrats in Congress have stood fast against this Colombian "free trade" deal. It remains to be seen whether the corporatist and war Democrats, who have caved on every other issue, will be able to "resist" a president with an 18% approval rating, and vote against the next oil war disguised as "free trade."

And we thought Rumsfeld was "retired," and could never again...

[Judi Lynn]

83. Pelosi Says Colombia Trade Accord Can't Pass Without Worker Aid

Pelosi Says Colombia Trade Accord Can't Pass Without Worker Aid

By Laura Litvan and Mark Drajem

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a free-trade agreement with Colombia won't pass Congress unless new assistance is offered to U.S. workers who are harmed by overseas competition.

``Until that happens, I don't see a climate here for passing a free-trade agreement,'' Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to send the Colombia trade accord to the Democratic-led Congress to force a vote. U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab told reporters yesterday that President George W. Bush will send the legislation to Congress ``very shortly.'' Congress will have 90 legislative days to hold an up-or-down vote on the accord. The legislation can't be amended or filibustered.

The Democratic presidential candidates have made the effect of trade accords, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, a top issue in the campaign.

More:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aUJ4J0GKTYUI&refer=latin_america

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

White House gambles on Colombia move
By James Politi in Washington

Published: March 11 2008 20:08 | Last updated: March 13 2008 01:23

The US administration on Wednesday threatened to submit a contentious free trade agreement with Colombia to Congress without the consent of the Democratic leadership in a move that would open up a new front in the fight over US trade policy.
(snip)

However, some Washington insiders say the more aggressive stance taken by the administration could backfire, not only with regard to the Colombia deal, but also other items of US trade policy which will need to be approved by Congress. These include the Doha round of global trade talks and FTAs with Panama and South Korea.

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, on Wednesday warned that the White House “should follow the established protocol of congressional consultation on the Colombia FTA”. She added that “any deviation from this normal procedure ... could prove to be counterproductive and would work against both countries’ long- term interests”.

Many Democrats oppose the Colombia FTA on the grounds that there has not been sufficient evidence of reduced violence in the country, particularly against union leaders. Some, like Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate finance committee, say consideration of FTAs should come after “trade adjustment assistance” to help workers laid off because of trade.

More:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8b69b86-ef9b-11dc-8a17-0000779fd2ac.html

[IggyReed]

85. What BS

For one, to say that the only worry about "free trade" is worker compensation lost to "foreign competition" is gutless and, frankly, ignorant. The "foreign competition" is people starving and willing to work for pennies and they don't have a chance to control their own resources or economic system (neither do we), thanks to "free trade". The secret trade tribunals of NAFTA and CAFTA, which are legally binding and paid with tax dollars, aren't a concern to these out of touch elites. Neither is the environmental destruction. The tariffs in the industrialized countries that have decimated peasant farmers (we basically socialize the big corporations transpiration costs which allows them to take over resources in other countries, driving them into poverty) aren't of any concern. There is a direct correlation between NAFTA and immigration to the US. The horrible copyright laws in these deals isn't a concern either, obviously. The fact that the CAFTA countries were made to buy from US firms, and not the cheaper generic versions, for five years is no worry. The fact that any country that properly tries to internalize the costs to the environment is punished by capitalists isn’t a concern either. The people who create the costs should be able to pass it on the public, otherwise we have “socialism”, right? Seriously, this governmental system is outdated and broken. The only reason we give these politicians the power over ours lives that they have is that it's assumed they make good decisions on our behalf. That's the only justification for their existence, and they clearly aren't doing that any longer. We need to copy Venezuela and give power directly to the people, and take it away from these crooks.

The Mexican government, supporters of NAFTA, did a report recently, which I'll link bellow, that shows that the environmental costs to Mexico are between two and three times higher than the benefits of the deal:

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/NAFTAEnviroKGAmerProgSep04.pdf

"First, since 1985 real incomes have grown at just 2.5%per year, and less than one percent per capita. Second, according to INEGI, major environmental problems have worsened since trade liberalization began in Mexico. Despite the fact that Mexico reached levels of income beyond the range of a predicted EKC turning point, national levels of soil erosion, municipal solid waste, and urban air and water pollution all worsened from 1985 to 1999.Rural soil erosion grew by 89%,municipal solid waste by 108%,water pollution by 29%, and urban air pollution by 97%."

"...The results have been costly to Mexico’s prospects for development. The INEGI studies estimate the financial costs of this environmental degradation at10% of GDP from 1988 to 1999, an average of $36 billion of damage each year ($47 billion for 1999). The destruction overwhelms the value of economic growth, which has been just 2.5% annually, or $14 billion per year".