Bogeyman
Im sure it's just pure coincidence that Hugo Chavez is being "Noriegafied" at the same time the price of oil hits an all time high while the US economy "slows .(Bushes characterization) Turning him into the new Saddam only takes a little co-operation between press, pundits, candidates and oil companies, nothing new there. One top purveyor of the Capitalist line is old Thor Halvorssen, writing for the Washinton Times and the Daily Standard:
"Chavez supports terrorism" and has "sympathized with global terrorism"... From the Heritage Foundation we read: "At home ,Chavez faces mounting inflation, food shortages caused by his anti-market economics and soaring crime rates". His "truculent and trigger-happy approach" is augmented by his "package of Russian military hardware". See where this is going? Chavez is trigger happy while the Colombian troops doing the shooting are freedom fighting democrats. By the way, inflation is dropping in Venezuela, food is hoarded as a political weapon. Crime has been high for fifty years.
How about Simon Romero from the NY Times Americas desk, always the objective journalist: Speaking of"The emphatic support for Colombias guerrillas expressed by Hugo Chavez" we must assume it is Chavez's demand that FARC be recognized as a belligerant with a legitimate army and political goals that has him so incensed. I am not defending the tactics of FARC, only pointing out the Spectacular use of the term "terrorist" now in vogue. The OAS (Organization of American States) to which the US has no current ambassador, supports the calls for Colombia to respect the sovereignty of it's neighbors.
Of course ,the candidates must weigh in and prove their own security toughness. Here is Barack Obama: "The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency." It is one way to describe a civil war, the Bush way, quite dishonest and anti-historical. Here is Hillary in fine form: " Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region." The putative "peace and security" is about as real as the "democracy" she touts, displaying both her ignorance and corruption in one fell swoop. Talk about murdered union leaders, Oxy Oil, Coca Cola, the 'War on Drugs", anything please, but pathetic jingoism and pimping for arms manufacturers and DOW chemicals.
The Tyrant for the Day meme is so old one wonders how they can keep trotting out the same tired skit but hey, I just saw the fifty year reunion of the Osmonds on tv (or was that an acid flashback?) and the old fans were rockin out to Donnys Soldier of Love. Menken had it right about underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
posted by troutsky @ 7:43 AM
36 comments
36 Comments:
A war would be disasterous for Venezuelan socialism.
I was at a conference in Minneapolis, on the African diaspora. I talked to people from the Venezuelan embassy. I sent your post to them. They'll probably distribute it in Venezuela.
Uribe accused Chavez of supporting "genocide." Like terrorist, that word is so politicized, it hardly means anything anymore.
I put up a post on this subject at my blog.
A war would be disasterious for Venezuela, unless it sparked a revolutionary movement in Colombia.
I dont sense regional war as immanent but we have to assume covert destabilization efforts are being intensified.Meanwhile funding for Plan Colombia is in limbo as is the Free Trade Agreement. Colombia is a quasi-fascist state being turned into a model "democracy" while Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and probably Uruguay will be given the "Haiti" treatment.The Orinoco Basin has the worlds largest proven reserves of oil but the US is way extended.
Hugo Chavez is being "Noriegafied"
Hugo Chavez is doing it to himself. He is threatening war on his neighbors, sending troops to the border, expelling diplomats and threatening Colombia and United States with destruction and sanctions.
He is insane. A war-monger. There is no need to vilify him. It's enough to simply quote him. He is vilifying himself.
I don't buy Chavez as the next Saddam. We've still got that Iranian fellow; the neocons want war, but only in the Middle East.
Chavez is a distraction, and hardly even an interesting one.
You've shown that the media will carry water for the United States, and that the three monkeys running for President are buffoons, but you've not said anything about what Chavez has done.
Are Sonia's comments incorrect? If so, I'd like to see this demonstrated. If not, you'd best distance yourself from Chavez, and quickly.
Wiser Man: Aw c'mon now! Yes, Chavez is a bully, he talks like a brain-dead populist, he controls the media and bores his people to death with his monologues, but "insane", a "war monger" and threatening the US with "destruction?" Maybe he did threaten, but who takes him seriously?
Sonia - the only reason Chavez has so much support - and he does have support - is that Venezuela is desparately poor, and run by a tiny slice of the population that is very rich.
Given the history of the USA in Latin America, I'm surprised Chavez has lasted this long. You could say that Iran is the distraction - without it, the CIA would have seen Chavez deposed some time ago I bet.
Sonia please!
(I felt it was important to let others in on what a hack you can be, so I edited and universalized this comment for all to read over on my blog)
Just be honest enough to admit it was Colombia that crossed the border of a sovereign nation, not Venezuela. Furthermore, be honest enough to read what we know to be true and exist as verifiable truth:
1) Colombian paramilitaries are responsible for 70% of all human rights violations in Colombia, not the FARC. These incontrovertible facts can be found on the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Global Exchange, Witness for Peace, et. al. websites.
2) The paramilitaries (AUC) are an armband switch-a-roo away from being Colombian military and police. Thereby making the actual terrorist organization the Colombian government and their criminal leader: Alvaro Uribe.
3) The U.S. is therefore a major sponsor of terror! To the tune of $5 billion since 1999 through Plan Colombia to fight the FARC and ELN, not the AUC paramilitaries.
4) Just in case $5 billion is not enough, a U.S. corporation has been linked to the paramilitaries to fund their repression of organized labor and carry out assassinations, torture and disappearances.
5) Chavez has won democratic elections consistently since 1998. Then when one of his policies was defeated, he graciously accepted defeat. Venezuela under Chavez is a democracy. (Just in case you or Beakerkin tell me to move there, let me interrupt you and say that I'm staying here because I want to bring democracy to the U.S.!)
5) The U.S. has already tried to overthrow Chavez once (2002) and failed. We funded and gave tactical support to the coup through the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. (Do your homework since the proof exists in the form of the declassified documents...just in case you actually decide to be honest and begin doing actual research and look at actual evidence, here you go: EVIDENCE
Your obsession with demonizing Chavez despite contravening evidence makes you sound like a complete joke!
Your credibility, like your fantasies about how the world actually is, has completely crumbled away since you continually fail to provide any kind of factual evidence to back your ridiculous claims. Even the U.S.'s own documentary record condemns them: go to the National Security Archive and read through the declassified documents there!
We (Ren, Trout, Graeme and I) read and listen to the undocumented claims of you and your ideological pals all day long, and unlike yourself, we wait for evidence from them. You instead take opinion as fact when it suits your narrative. If you were one of my students I would have to give you a failing grade for not providing evidence to back your claims. Opinion doesn't count here...you need to show up with data and evidence to back you wishful thinking!
Wiser,
What do you seek answers to?
Do you want to know if Chavez is a "war monger"? C'mon!!
Do you want to know if Chavez is a dictator? Seriously, grow up Sonia and Co.!!
Do want to know who the Empire supports? Do you even need to ask?
Do you need something to read?
I'm not sure what you expect. I gave a list of to-do's in the other blog. Do them! Read some of them!
I sense that the force is strong with you Wiser...feed your anger...give into the power of the Dark Side!
I would add to what Che said, was that in Colombia, the legal, electoral parties have had large numbers of people killed off. There can be no Chavez in Venezuela, because they don't have democracy.
If Chavez invades Columbia the United
States should invade. We should also set up Contra camps in Columbia and give Chavez a taste of his own medicine.
I want to encourage all Commies to form a new Abraham Lincoln Brigade and to fight for Hugo's right to deal drugs and spread terrorism beyond his borders.
How many of you webolutionaries are
willing to die for Chavez's mania?
How many of you parasites are willing to turn a blind eye to Communist drug dealing?
Are the trips of Troutsky and Che Bob subsidized. If the answer is yes they should be required to register as foreign agents and be under 24/7 scrutiny. Sending Sponge Che Bob to Gitmo would be cruel to
his fellow internees as he is a bore.
Lichanos,
the only reason Chavez has so much support - and he does have support - is that Venezuela is desparately poor
I know he has support. That's the problem. And Venezuela being poor certainly explains his support in Venezuela. But not in United States. Why would people like Ren, Graeme, Trotsky and Che Bob support Chavez ? The only reason I can see is because of his anti-American-imperialist rhetoric. If Chavez was praising Bush and accepting his aid, they would all be denouncing him.
Che,
I will answer you on your blog.
Lichanos,
the only reason Chavez has so much support - and he does have support - is that Venezuela is desparately poor
I know he has support. That's the problem. And Venezuela being poor certainly explains his support in Venezuela. But not in United States. Why would people like Ren, Graeme, Trotsky and Che Bob support Chavez ? The only reason I can see is because of his anti-American-imperialist rhetoric. If Chavez was praising Bush and accepting his aid, they would all be denouncing him.
Che,
I will answer you on your blog.
The Monroe Doctrine seems to be alive.
I can't believe Beakerkin said he wishes the US would intervene. Think about how it would effect the internal political situation in the US, combined with what would happen in South America. They only politically are able to work through proxies, as Stalin Gonzalez etc.
Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. In Venezuela it was possible for a change to come from the electoral process. In Colombia all of the legal political activity against the oliogarchy, is met by death squads.
The Venezuelans will tell you, that for Americans, political work in the US helps them.
Sonia:
The only reason I can see is because of his anti-American-imperialist rhetoric.
Hmmm...I think I have to agree with you! Of course, not many people here support Chavez...
Still, that doesn't mean that everything Chavez does is wrong...Politics is the realm of untruth - everyone takes sides and hides their dirty laundry. Merleau-Ponty found philosophical reasons to excuse Stalin's mass murder, and so on...
In life, sometimes you have to take a side even with misgivings, but you don't have to BELIEVE in it. Only recognize it's the best choice. If I were in Venezuela, I might support Chavez (I really don't know - don't follow him that closely, and of course, it would depend on who I was if I weren't who I am but were a Venezuelan...) But if I did support him, I like to think I would still find him a pompous ass during his television monologues.
Oh, and just remember, I still think GWB is the worst president ever, etc. etc.
By the way, please put some clothes on. I feel like a pervert agreeing with you.
I sense that the force is strong with you Wiser...feed your anger...give into the power of the Dark Side!
*chuckle* Anger isn't something I've been lacking of late.
You folks and I have severe ideological disagreements about the role of government, and, more importantly, about the moral permissibility--I won't say necessity--of the free market system. Fair enough.
Thus it follows that some of you would support Chavez. Based on my reading of recent history, men of the left are prone to dictatorship. I'm a libertarian, so I'm not going to defend Bush, but it's telling that Wilson, Lincoln, and FDR are jailed more dissidents than Bush could ever attempt to jail.
I appreciate the links, and will continue pondering the matter. Meanwhile, don't be surprised if Chavez does turn out to be a despot; it's happened before, and it will happen again.
Wiser,
Are you seriously calling Wilson or Lincoln or FDR "men of the left?" Please explain that doozy! "Left" of what? What do you think of as "men of the left"? If they are "lefties" because they're left of you, please allow me to say that I no longer want to be a man of the left...it's just too insulting! Okay, it could be worse...but you get the point.
As far as your reading of history, I fear you are confusing how you read history. Under Wilson's order many actual "men [and women] of the left" were jailed. Wilson jailed socialists, communists, and anarchists. They jailed under the Alien Sedition Act of 1918.
As far as Chavez is concerned, I don't own a single piece of Chavez memorabilia because, like you, I too identify with libertarian tendencies and seek a non-hierarchical society. You and I diverge economically. I am not confused about my support of the rights of nations to determine their own futures. So I unequivocally support the democratic process in Venezuela. We should leave Venezuela's future in the very capable hands of the people of that nation.
Should democracy actually disappear in Venezuela it would be appropriate to support a change. However, it is a simple truism that we should concern ourselves first and foremost with our own crimes. Democracy is far from being in a healthy state here in the U.S. What's more, our country has a long documented history of undermining democracy all over the world.
Ren
Once Chavez invades Columbia it is over. Moreover, we should form Contras based in Columbia. Hugo has started this and it is time he gets a taste of his own medicine.
A plebescite is not democracy.
FYI Unlike the foreign agents Troutsky and Sponge Che Bob I meet
with Venezuelan refugees every week. You do not have a clue as usual. The refugees merely lived there for decades.
sfgsegraYou have to tell us more about about these "Venezuelan refugees" Beakerkin, class? ideology? What does your office do?
Of course Beaks war isn't going to happen, there's this wierd thing called diplomacy, (totally un-American)and Colombia decided not to pursue the computer evidence?
The same people who thought Venezuela would erupt into chaos after the referendum, who thought Rudy was a viable candidate, who thought the war in Iraq was "won", who thought we would avoid a recession or that Condi would bring peace to the Middle East or Iran had nuclear weapons and on and on,...these people who are wrong on EVERY issue yet persist with the same lame analysis embody the crisis of total integration into the society of the Spectacle.Not only do such people prefer the image to reality, they worship the image, the hologram, the theory disproved over and over and over again.
Lichanos, how can I access your blog?
Wiser, it is not a question of unconditional support of or "distancing" from Chavez, just a balanced analysis of events, including historical context.NPR is doing a horrible job, very disturbing.Colombia is a corrupt and vicious client state.This is not support for FARC, just a fact as CheBob proves.
The opposition in Venezuela were out on the streets supporting Colombia. That is because Venezuela is democratic and allows it. The opposition is alive and well, unlike in Colombia.
Chavez was bluffing. He doesn't want a war with Colombia. The ambassador from Venezuela, brags about having diplomatic relations with Colombia. Venezuela needs to make reforms in its military, before a war can be thought about. These are two capitalist countries, with dependant economies.
I like the idea of Beakerkin's of contras invading Venezuela. That would be the spark that Chavez needs. He would nationalize the oligarchy in 2 seconds.
"A plebecite is not democracy." Beakerkin is cryptic again. In Venezuela there is an online record of the vote, a written and a blue thumb. My friends were election monitors, in both Chavista and opposition areas. When the results were read, nobody thought of disputing them.
It's hard to talk about Latin America, and only talk about Venezuela. At this moment, the main source of revenue for Mexicans, is money from relatives in the US. If the US catches a cold, Mexico gets pneumonia. Obrador will be the next president.
Trout, If you don't mind, I would appreciate a reply to my comment on your "Virtual Conditioning" post.
Ren, this latest situation only highlights the complete foreign poicy failure of the last decade or two, repeated virtually everywhere.It is symbolic, hence all the discussion. US hegemony is slip-sliding away.Those bourgeois students protesting away in their Varnet sunglasses are living in a soon to burst bubble.
Greg, Got it covered ,thanks for visiting.
Troutsky:
I don't know why you cannot see my blog. It's at:
www.iamyouasheisme.wordpress.com
The link on your sidebar seems wrong, although I think it worked in the past.
I no longer use blogspot, although I still have a page there for redirects.
Are you seriously calling Wilson or Lincoln or FDR "men of the left?" Please explain that doozy! "Left" of what?
Left-leaning take a totalitarian view of government: it should take care of everyone, and--perhaps--punish dissidents.
Lincoln doesn't fit very well into the right/left paradigm, but Wilson and FDR were certainly leftists.
Under Wilson's order many actual "men [and women] of the left" were jailed. Wilson jailed socialists, communists, and anarchists. They jailed under the Alien Sedition Act of 1918.
That's true. Anyone who didn't tow the imperialist line was suspect. I have no quarrel with the Old Left--with whom Ron Paul might proudly stand.
Wiser, it is not a question of unconditional support of or "distancing" from Chavez, just a balanced analysis of events, including historical context.NPR is doing a horrible job, very disturbing.Colombia is a corrupt and vicious client state.This is not support for FARC, just a fact as CheBob proves.
I'll grant you that the reporting is terrible, but permit me my skepticism. I'm firmly convinced the U.S. has no business with Chavez. If he is a man of the people, let them keep him. If he's not, he'll tumble like they always do.
I really hope you're wrong about why we're messing with him. I hate being a part of an empire.
Wiser,
If he is a man of the people, let them keep him. If he's not, he'll tumble like they always do.
There just seems to be something naive in this statement. It's kind of like you're saying that God will wave his hand and the truth will be done. Because the problem is that we as human beings (not invisible hands) can actively work to undermine functioning democracies. We can do a lot of damage to subvert Venezuelan democracy in our imperial rush.
Good post. The media coverage of the debacle in the U.S. has been shameless, but utterly predictable. We saw the same kind of one-sided stories during the December referendum a few months back.
A quick interjection from a few comments back, though I feel as though I have probably missed this discussion entirely: Lincoln was, by both 19th century standards and present day standards, a leftist. Marx himself recognized Lincoln's role as a revolutionary leader in the abolition of private slave property. Though the U.S. government during the Civil War was far from a dictatorship of the proletariat, Lincoln was easily the most socialist President in American history and, in my opinion, one of the greatest Marxist leaders in history (inadvertent as it may have been).
Dave,
Lincoln was easily the most socialist President in American history
I agree.
It's not for nothing that American Communists fought in the LINCOLN BRIGADE during the Spanish Civil War...
Also, more Americans died violently during the Lincoln presidency than during all the other presidencies COMBINED.
Something to keep in mind when electing socialist presidents...
Troutsky
I work with immigrants and have never heard a single word about the Columbian government from the numerous applicants. They have plenty
to say about Commies. The Venezuelans
disagree with the BS that is typical
of the foreign agents Che Sponge Bob
and yourself.
Sonia,
He was fighting a civil war. It was not Lincoln's fault that the Southern states seceded, and claiming that his socialist attributes had anything to do with the outbreak of the civil war is a post-hoc fallacy in the highest regard (slaves were not freed until after the war has already begun). Yes, many Americans died but this is characteristic of any civil war (soldiers on both sides of the battle line are of the same nationality).
Dave,
It was not Lincoln's fault that the Southern states seceded
And whose fault was that ? George W. Bush's ? Southern states have proclaimed very loudly that if Lincoln is elected, they would secede. Northerns voted for Republicans despite this warning. They knew that would mean war. They wanted war.
The South didn't want war. They wanted to exploit and oppress their slaves in peace.
Exactly like the Iraq War, btw. Saddam also wanted peace to oppress Shiites and Kurds with impunity.
Republican presidents in Washington were agressors in both cases.
The question is: why do you defend the 1861 agression while condemning the 2003 one ? Your position is contradictory and illogical.
Sonia - are you for real? Your comments are just bizarre enough for me to think you might be.
Nice to see you noticed that Lincoln was a Republican. Withouth that, where would Nixon's Southern Strategy have been?
Do you think the country should have let the south oppress its slaves in peace? It was ONE country you know. There was no foreign invasion...
What does a civil war fought between two regions of a country nearly 150 years ago, over issues that are no longer current, have to do with a superpower invading a country halfway around the world?
Perhaps your rapier wit and irony is too much for me and I am missing the point, so to speak...
lichanos,
Unfortunately, that's not "wit" you're sensing. It's as straight-forward as her clothing choices. She doesn't even get herself. At first, many of us were entertained and thought her to be a worthy right-wing opponent. Maybe I need to go back and read some of our earliest exchanges to see if she was indeed clever or if we were just distracted by that damned avatar!
Maybe she had a ghost writer who is on sabbatical.
I've looked long and hard for a conservative or right-winger that is worth talking to. So far, I've only come up with William Burke. Are there any real conservatives left?
Halvorssen is an odd character. Members of his family appear to be heavily involved in industrial and financial interests in South America. His father was once drug czar for Venezuela under a previous president but was jailed on charges of corruption for allegedly moving Colombian cocaine through Venezuela to America. DEA officials at the time described him as having links with the CIA and as being an unreliable source of information, despite the fact that his position in the Venezuelan government would have made him a natural ally with the DEA. The younger Halvorssen (both father and son are named Thor), writes all the anti-Chavez articles for various conservative American papers and who occasionally appears on The 700 Club (also to rant against Chavez). He's also made a career of various right-wing advocacy organizations which style themselves to be human rights organizations but which seem only very selectively concerned about human rights violations by the governments of Venezuela and China. He also produced a number of short documentaries the release of which were timed to coincide with that of SiCKO...and counteract its message (not that the effort went very far).
It also appears that quite a few members of the Halvorssen clan live in Miami Dade, Florida. I'm assuming they have at least a few ties to the anti-Castro community.
Post a Comment
<< Home