Venezuelans protest Chavez's referendum

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
In summary, a referendum is being held in Venezuela to eliminate term limits for President Hugo Chávez and expand his power, leading to protests and signs of dissent among his supporters. The proposed changes have caused concern over the consolidation of power in the hands of one man and the potential for democratic principles to be violated. Chávez's actions, such as purging political opponents and stopping international observers from monitoring elections, have also raised questions about the legitimacy of the referendum. Additionally, the referendum would give Chávez the power to issue emergency decrees and suspend due process rights, causing further concern over potential abuses of power.
  • #1
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
24,017
3,337
Does what Chavez proposes surprise anyone?

CARACAS, Venezuela - Tens of thousands of people flooded the streets of the capital Thursday to oppose a referendum that would eliminate term limits for President Hugo Chavez and help him establish a socialist state in Venezuela.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071129/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_constitution [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Not in the slightest. People in the US complain about Bush's supposed aspirations, but how this real Hitler wannabee got where he is in a supposedly democratic state in the 21st century astounds me.
 
  • #3
Chavez is more of Castro or Khrushchev, but not a Hitler.

It's time for him to go - but peacefully and democratically.

Henrique Capriles, mayor of the Caracas borough of Baruta, said even some people who support Chavez are against the constitutional changes.
from the article cited by Evo.
 
  • #4
Chavez would still have to be elected. get real. He's not saying he wants to be president for life. & what other things does the referendum say? can anyone find anything more specific than "socialist state?" Does anyone have any FACTS & not just editorials or commentary? Does anyone know about the CIA's operation pliers?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Chavez has had a bullseye on him for a while.
 
  • #6
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/world/americas/30venez.html

In Chávez Territory, Signs of Dissent
By SIMON ROMERO
CARACAS, Venezuela, Nov. 29 — Three days before a referendum that would vastly expand the powers of President Hugo Chávez, this city’s streets were packed on Thursday with tens of thousands of opponents to the change. The protests signaled that Venezuelans may be balking at placing so much authority in the hands of one man.

Even some of Mr. Chávez’s most fervent supporters are beginning to show signs of hesitation at backing the constitutional changes he is promoting, which would end term limits for the president and greatly centralize his authority. Other measures would increase social security benefits for the poor and shorten the workday.

New fissures are emerging in what was once a cohesive bloc of supporters, pointing to the toughest test at the polls for Mr. Chávez in his nine-year presidency.

In the slums of the capital, where some of the president’s staunchest backers live amid the cinder-block hovels, debate over the changes has grown more intense in recent days.

“Chávez is delirious if he thinks we’re going to follow him like sheep,” said Ivonne Torrealba, 29, a hairdresser in the gritty Coche district, who has supported Mr. Chávez in every election since his first campaign for president in 1998. “If this government cannot get me milk or asphalt for our roads, how is it going to give my mother a pension?”

Both Mr. Chávez, a self-described socialist who has won elections by wide margins, and his critics say opinion polls show they will prevail, suggesting a highly contentious outcome. But departing from its practice in last year’s presidential election, Venezuela did not invite electoral observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union, opening the government to claims of fraud if he wins.
. . . .
Well there appear to be signs of dissent and dissatisfaction. Perhaps some followers are wonder if Chávez is really helping them or himself.
 
  • #7
fourier jr said:
Chavez would still have to be elected. get real.
Incumbents have a natural advantage in elections, and this wouldn't necessarily be his last step. Regardless of how far his people allow him to go, attempting to extend your own term is a clear violation of democratic principles.

He has also taken other steps that call into question the legitimacy of the elections - he has stopped inviting international observers to watch the elections and purging of political opponents from national organizations, for example.

He also has the usual socialist trump card: socialists get support by bribing their constituents.
He's not saying he wants to be president for life.
But he is trying to set up his system to make it possible.
& what other things does the referendum say?
It also expands his power in other ways, such as:
But the proposal to expand the president’s power to issue emergency decrees has alarmed human rights groups. The new charter would allow the president to suspend some due process rights, like the right to be tried by an independent tribunal. And Mr. Chávez could declare states of emergency for unlimited periods and censor news organizations. [from the Times link]
Does anyone know about the CIA's operation pliers?
The what? What is an "operation plier"?
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Astronuc said:
Well there appear to be signs of dissent and dissatisfaction. Perhaps some followers are wonder if Chávez is really helping them or himself.
People in a democratic statement can get complacant, but they aren't sheep. Something like this causes them to react pretty strongly. I've never taken part in a political event of any kind, but if someone here tried to get a law passed to extend his own term, I'd be joining the protests.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
Incumbents have a natural advantage in elections, and this wouldn't necessarily be his last step. Regardless of how far his people allow him to go, attempting to extend your own term is a clear violation of democratic principles.
I've never heard of that before. If he gets rid of term limits, Venezuela will not be less democratic than countries like Canada, the UK, or the US was before Teddy Roosevelt.

He has also taken other steps that call into question the legitimacy of the elections - he has stopped inviting international observers to watch the elections and purging of political opponents from national organizations, for example.
which political opponents? political opponents who have been funded, organized & generally enabled by the CIA &/or it's front organization, the National Endowment for Democracy? Interesting that you mention legitimacy of Venezuela's elections when US elections have been the laughing stock of the rest of the world since 2000.

He also has the usual socialist trump card: socialists get support by bribing their constituents. But he is trying to set up his system to make it possible. It also expands his power in other ways, such as:
How does he "bribe his constituents?" Luckily things aren't true just because they're asserted confidently by the US-backed opposition in Venezuela.


The what? What is an "operation plier"?
http://www.google.com/search?q=operation+pliers
 
  • #10
Anyone who attempts to limit personal liberties should be a concern to everyone.
 
  • #11
fourier jr said:
I've never heard of that before. If he gets rid of term limits, Venezuela will not be less democratic than countries like Canada, the UK, or the US was before Teddy Roosevelt.
Yes, it will. You are missing the point. The point isn't the term limits law itself, the point is that he is trying to make the change for himself. It is a violation of democratic principles for the person in power to change a country's laws specifically for his own benefit because it means that he doesn't respect the rule of law. He doesn't believe the law should apply to him.

This is similar to the Schwarchenegger issue. It isn't necessarily a bad idea to allow a naturalized citizen to become President, but to change the Constitution just so he can be president would be wrong.

BTW, the converse is also true. It would have been a violation of democratic principles for an amendment to be passed to end TR's Presidency.

Ok, fair enough. I'm not interested in this or the other conspiracy theories in your post, so I have nothing to say about that.
How does he "bribe his constituents?" Luckily things aren't true just because they're asserted confidently by the US-backed opposition in Venezuela.
You misunderstand. That comment wasn't about Chavez per se and isn't bribery in the literal sense (it is a very thin line, though), just about the reality of how socialism grows/gains support. Socialism gains support because the government hands out money, jobs, housing, etc. via social programs. People love getting free money and good government jobs. It makes no difference if it is Chavez or Roosevelt or even some of the more sinister examples from history. They get their initial support the same way and from the same people (the poor).

Anyway, what that means is that for someone who intends to sieze power, it is possible to use such policies to mollify the masses while consolidating that power.

Obviously, we can't know how far Chavez wants to go, but it is not Roosevelt's playbook that he is following. Roosevelt was in power a long time and he brought socialism to the US, but he worked within the system and there was never any question about his commitment to democracy. The fact that Chavez is throwing democratic principles aside is a troubling early sign of what could be coming. I, for one, believe that the term "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
fourier jr said:
...the CIA's operation pliers?

...which political opponents? political opponents who have been funded, organized & generally enabled by the CIA &/or it's front organization, the National Endowment for Democracy?
Please. I know the US military rep. for Latin America who went down there in '02. He told the V. military clearly: 'no coup'. As for that website, give me a couple minutes and I'll put one up that says you are behind the mischief down there. Yes, yes, I have the evidence that CNN is afraid to air.
 
  • #13
Making Sense of Venezuela’s Constitutional Reform
December 1st 2007, by Gregory Wilpert – Venezuelanalysis.com

The Venezuelan government's effort to create "21st century socialism" is moving ahead full-steam with the December 2nd constitutional reform referendum. While tensions and confusion about the reform are rising in Venezuela, it is important to realize that this reform will mean both less and more than most outside observers seem to think. That is, as usual, many pundits, such as from the Venezuelan opposition and from so-called international experts, are painting a picture of a Venezuela that is about to finally slip into "Castro-communism," a picture that could hardly be further from the truth and that has been falsely predicted for Chavez's entire presidency of now nine years. While there are negative or not-so-good aspects of the reform, which for the most part involve giving the president some more powers, the Venezuelan president, even after the reform, is still does not have as much institutional power as the U.S. president. On the other hand, in the process of focusing on the centralizing aspects of the reform, most observers willfully miss the ways in which the positive aspects of the upcoming reform have the potential to make Venezuelan political life more in tune with the interests of the country's mostly poor majority.

*snip*

What the Reform is About

Chavez's constitutional reform project deepens policies in five main areas: participatory democracy, social inclusion, non-neoliberal (socialist?) economic development, politico-territorial reorganization, and stronger (or more effective?) central government. In addition, there are a few changes that don't fit into any of these categories, mainly because they don't do anything much, except adorn an already very progressive constitution.

*snip*
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2943


Constitutional reforms in Venezuela
October 26th 2007, by Embassy of Venezuela in the US

*snip*

Many of the proposed reforms seek to deepen the protection and promotion of certain rights and liberties:
* The proposed reform of Article 21 would add sexual orientation and health to the categories under which discrimination is prohibited.
* The proposed reform of Article 64 would lower the voting age to 16, following the lead of Austria, Nicaragua and Brazil.
* The proposed reform of Article 82 would codify the right the adequate housing for all Venezuelans and prohibit the state from taking any home as part of a judicial sanction.
* The proposed reform of Article 87 would call for the creation of a social security fund for those Venezuelans that are self-employed or in the informal sector.
* The proposed reform of Article 90 would decrease the workweek from 44 hours to 36 hours.
* The proposed reform of Article 98 would protect the creation and communication of cultural goods.
* The proposed reform of Article 100 would formally recognize and protect Afro-Venezuelan heritage and culture.
* The proposed reform of Article 103 would articulate the right to education for all Venezuelans, and mandate that all public education through university be free of charge.
* The proposed reform of Article 158 would mandate that the government take all steps to ensure the active participation of the citizenry in the country’s democratic system.
* The proposed reform of Article 272 would establish that the Venezuelan penitentiary system direct its efforts towards the full rehabilitation of prisoners and respect their human rights during incarceration.

*snip*
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2764

I doubt anyone here cares enough to actually read either of those since they're fairly long, but those are the details that Americans will probably never find out about. It's so much easier to give the Bush admin the benefit of the doubt.
 
  • #14
fourier jr said:
I doubt anyone here cares enough to actually read either of those since they're fairly long, but those are the details that Americans will probably never find out about. It's so much easier to give the Bush admin the benefit of the doubt.
How typically egocentric - Bush this, Bush that. It's not only the Bush administration that is worried about Chavez's consolidation of power.
Chavez has all the hallmark symptoms of a dictator, including a Sunday morning spot on state television. Did someone say "Orwellian"?
 
  • #15
Yonoz said:
How typically egocentric - Bush this, Bush that. It's not only the Bush administration that is worried about Chavez's consolidation of power.
Yes it is. That's the only government that has attempted to overthrow Chavez. The next worst thing I know of is Spain's King telling Chavez to shut up.

Chavez has all the hallmark symptoms of a dictator, including a Sunday morning spot on state television. Did someone say "Orwellian"?
How is that more "Orwellian" than Kevin Rudd appearing on ABC or Gordon Brown appearing on BBC, or Stephen Harper appearing on CBC? Did you know Canada's throne speech (kind of like a state of the union address) was broadcast all over the country in September, at primetime, on state television? Explain to me how that is any less "Orwellian" than Chavez having a Sunday morning spot on Venezuela state tv.
 
  • #16
fourier jr said:
Yes it is. That's the only government that has attempted to overthrow Chavez. The next worst thing I know of is Spain's King telling Chavez to shut up.

Isn't the only reason we care is because of all the oil we get from them? Say if Chavez was in Nicaragua, he'd get no news coverage.
 
  • #17
fourier jr said:
How is that more "Orwellian" than Kevin Rudd appearing on ABC or Gordon Brown appearing on BBC, or Stephen Harper appearing on CBC? Did you know Canada's throne speech (kind of like a state of the union address) was broadcast all over the country in September, at primetime, on state television? Explain to me how that is any less "Orwellian" than Chavez having a Sunday morning spot on Venezuela state tv.
For a country with lots of people in remote, rural locations and spotty access to electricity and TVs, it makes perfect sense to have public speeches aired when people can congregate to watch and listen to them.
 
  • #18
Yonoz said:
Chavez has all the hallmark symptoms of a dictator, including a Sunday morning spot on state television.
How different is this from the Sunday morning spot on US radio that every President of the US has enjoyed since the 20's?

While I've got dozens of reasons for disliking Chavez (including the details of many of the proposed changes), I don't see how submitting a proposal of changes that will be voted on by the people is itself a terrible subversion of the democratic process. We've seen cases in the US where laws have been made/changed by Presidential dictat or Executive Order and the only recourse the people have, is to take the trash out sometime in the next 4 years.

I think the big concern here should be about whether the process has been given the time and tools necessary to sufficiently inform the populace about the details of the proposed changes and provide for a fair polling of their opinions, and I don't doubt for a second that Chavez will try and pull every dirty trick in the book to skew the results.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
fourier jr said:
Yes it is. That's the only government that has attempted to overthrow Chavez.
No, The Republic of Fourier is the only government that has to attempted to overthrow Chavez.

Ok, please site some evidence, just a little bit of non-conspiracy minded evidence that backs up that outrageous 'overthrow' claim.
 
  • #20
mheslep said:
Ok, please site some evidence, just a little bit of non-conspiracy minded evidence that backs up that outrageous 'overthrow' claim.

there will never be any "real evidence" backing up that sort of outrageous overthrow claim... well at least not in the next 50 years (EVEN IF these allegations are true). If these are the work of the CIA or whatever, I bet you will never ever know anything about their operations... because their operations are meant to be secretive (by definition!).

Our system is a great system isn't it?? We elect ppl to oversee and have control over these so-called security agencies (to keep us safe by the way...) and we have absolutely no #$%&! idea what they actually do. I hope they won't do anything against our moral ideals but when there is oil involved... I would be a bit skeptical...

Still, perhaps the CIA is better than the secret police used by Chavez to rig election, to give himself more powers and to deprive the world of his oil. But at the end of the day, we just don't know, we don't even know what the CIA really does.

As far as the issue of Chavez, the US media is skewed far too much towards Washington, and sooner or later we may even turn Venezuela into the new Iraq! Now, let's not get too over-excited, we still haven't finished the war in the ME.

I wonder what the majority of Venezuelans really think of Chavez. If we don't like him, that doesn't automatically mean the average struggling Venezuelans would agree with us.
 
  • #21
mjsd said:
there will never be any "real evidence" backing up that sort of outrageous overthrow claim... well at least not in the next 50 years (EVEN IF these allegations are true). If these are the work of the CIA or whatever, I bet you will never ever know anything about their operations... because their operations are meant to be secretive (by definition!).

Opec chief warned Chavez about coup

Greg Palast
Monday May 13, 2002
The Guardian

The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, had advance warning of last month's coup attempt against him from the secretary general of Opec, Ali Rodriguez, allowing him to prepare an extraordinary plan which saved both his government and his life, an investigation has revealed.

Mr Rodriguez, who is Venezuelan and a former leftwing guerrilla, telephoned Mr Chavez from the Vienna headquarters of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, of which Venezuela is an important member, several days before the attempted overthrow in April.

He said Opec had learned that some Arab countries, later revealed to be Libya and Iraq, planned to call for a new oil embargo against the United States because of its support for Israel.
The Opec chief warned Mr Chavez that the US would prod a long-simmering coup into action to break any embargo threat. It was likely to act on April 11, the day a general strike was due to start.

It was Venezuela which shattered the oil embargo of 1973 by replacing Arab oil with its own huge reserves.

The warning - revealed by a Newsnight investigation to be shown on BBC2 tonight - explains the swift and safe return of Mr Chavez to power within two days of his April 12 capture by military officers under the direction of the coup leader, Pedro Carmona.

etc etc

Mr Chavez told Newsnight that, after receiving the warning from Opec, he had hoped to stave off the coup entirely by issuing a statement to mollify the Bush adminstration. He pledged that Venezuela would neither join nor tolerate a renewed oil embargo.

But Mr Chavez had already incurred America's wrath by slashing Venezuelan oil output and rebuilding Opec, causing oil prices to nearly double to over $20 a barrel.

His opponents had made it clear that they would not abide by Opec production limits and would reverse his plan to double the royalties charged to foreign oil companies in Venezuela, principally the US petroleum giant Exxon-Mobil. The US government's panic over the calls for an oil embargo, made public by Iraq and Libya on April 8 and 9, also explains what Venezuelans see as the state department's ill-concealed and clumsy support for the coup attempt.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight: "I have written proof of the time of the entries and exits of two US military officers into the headquarters of the coup plotters - their names, whom they met with, what they said - proof on video and on still photographs."

Last month the Guardian reported a former US intelligence officer's claims that the US had been considering a coup to overthrow the Venezuelan president for nearly a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,858072,00.html
link to the Newsnight story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/1985670.stm

(the Guardian is the world's only major paper which is owned by a nonprofit organisation, and BBC is public television, if anyone cares)

I'm sure Palast is just a liberal with an axe to grind though...
 
  • #23
Gokul43201 said:
How different is this from the Sunday morning spot on US radio that every President of the US has enjoyed since the 20's?
Does that spot last six hours?
 
  • #24
Greg Bernhardt said:
Apparently it has been rejected, but there is plenty of time for chavez to tweak things.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/03/venezuela.referendum/index.html

I think the vote has been tweaked enough already:

CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela
November 28th 2007, by Eva Golinger

*snip*

On a scarier note, an internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister - almost fantastical, were it not true - plan to destabilize Venezuela during the coming days. The plan, titled "OPERATION PLIERS" was authored by CIA Officer Michael Middleton Steere and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington. Steere is stationed at the US Embassy in Caracas under the guise of a Regional Affairs Officer. The internal memorandum, dated November 20, 2007, references the "Advances of the Final Stage of Operation Pliers", and confirms that the operation is coordinated by the team of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) in Venezuela. The memo summarizes the different scenarios that the CIA has been working on in Venezuela for the upcoming referendum vote on December 2nd. The Electoral Scenario, as it's phrased, confirms that the voting tendencies will not change substantially before Sunday, December 2nd, and that the SI (YES) vote in favor of the constitutional reform has an advantage of about 10-13 points over the NO vote. The CIA estimates abstention around 60% and states in the memo that this voting tendency is irreversible before the elections.

*snip*

In the memo, the CIA proposes the following tactics and actions:
* Take the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation
* Generate a climate of ungovernability
* Provoke a general uprising in a substantial part of the population
* Engage in a "plan to implode" the voting centers on election day by encouraging opposition voters to "VOTE and REMAIN" in their centers to agitate others
* Start to release data during the early hours of the afternoon on Sunday that favor the NO vote (in clear violation of election regulations)
* Coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies
Coordinate with ex-militar officers and coupsters Pena Esclusa and Guyon Cellis - this will be done by the Military Attache for Defense and Army at the US Embassy in Caracas, Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO)

To encourage rejection of the results, the CIA proposes:
* Creating an acceptance in the public opinion that the NO vote will win for sure
* Using polling companies contracted by the CIA
* Criticize and discredit the National Elections Council
* Generate a sensation of fraud
* Use a team of experts from the universities that will talk about how the data from the Electoral Registry has been manipulated and will build distrust in the voting system

The CIA memo also talks about:
* Isolating Chavez in the international community
* Trying to achieve unity amongst the opposition
* Seek an aliance between those abstentionists and those who will vote "NO"
* Sustain firmly the propaganda against Chavez
* Execute military actions to support the opposition mobilizations and propagandistic occupations
* Finalize the operative preparations on the US military bases in Curacao and Colombia to provide support to actions in Venezuela
* Control a part of the country during the next 72-120 hours
* Encourage a military rebellion inside the National Guard forces and other components

Those involved in these actions as detailed in the CIA memo are:
* The CIA Office in Venezuela - Office of Regional Affairs, and Officer Michael Steere
* US Embassy in Venezuela, Ambassador Patrick Duddy
* Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO) at the US Embassy in Caracas and Military Attache Richard Nazario

Venezuelan Political Parties:
* Comando Nacional de la Resistencia
* Accion Democratica
* Primero Justicia
* Bandera Roja

Media:
* Alberto Federico Ravell & Globovision
* Interamerican Press Society (IAPA) or SIP in Spanish
* International Press Agencies

Venezuelans:
* Pena Esclusa
* Guyon Cellis
* Dean of the Simon Bolivar University, Rudolph Benjamin Podolski
* Dean of the Andres Bello Catholic University, Ugalde
* Students: Yon Goicochea, Juan Mejias, Ronel Gaglio, Gabriel Gallo, Ricardo Sanchez
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2914
 
Last edited:
  • #25
You originally posted the very reasonable call for:
fourier jr said:
Does anyone have any FACTS & not just editorials or commentary?

And then follow up with this:
fourier jr said:
which has no facts at all about any US active involvement in a coup. Nothing. Just some comments from an Opec guy? A former V. leftist guerrilla? Chavez saying 'they're out to get me'?[/QUOTE]

(the Guardian is the world's only major paper which is owned by a nonprofit organisation, and BBC is public television, if anyone cares)
Its a non-profit, so? You won't find any responsible media outlet printing a US backed coup story.

BBC is public TV. Your point? That the BBC is some how more http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/28/hutton.blair/index.html" [Broken]?
Enough w/ the smears, one can find some real facts if you are inclined:
http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Enough w/ the smears, one can find some real facts if you are inclined:
http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf

That thing says the National Endowment for Democracy supported Chavez's opposition, which led to Chavez being overthrown, which is basically what I've been saying:
"During the six-month period in question, NED and core officials provided training and other support to, and maintained frequent contact with individuals and organizations involved in the events of April 12-14. NED and core grantee documents, and interviews with NED and core officials, lead to the conclusion that these contacts were consistent with the law, policy, and approved programs."

The NED is literally a front for the CIA which was created by the Reagan admin after the negative revelations of the CIA were exposed in the late 70s. (the so-called "skeletons in its closet" which were declassified recently)

The Bush Administration and its press puppies - the same ones who couldn’t get enough of the purple thumbs of voters of Iraq - are absolutely livid that this weekend the electorate of Venezuela had the opportunity to vote.

Typical was the mouth-breathing editorial by the San Francisco Chronicle, that the referendum could make Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s President, “a constitutional dictator for life.” And no less a freedom fighter than Donald Rumsfeld, from the height of the Washington Post, said that by voting, Venezuela was “receding into dictatorship.” Oh, my!

Given that Chavez’ referendum was defeated at the ballot box, we now know that, as a dictator, Chavez is a flop. Of course, without meaning to gainsay Secretary Rumsfeld, maybe Chavez is not a dictator.

Let’s get clear exactly what this vote was about. Firstly, it was a referendum to change the nation’s constitution to end term limits for President.

Oh, horror! Imagine if we eliminated term limits in the US! We could end up stuck with a president - like Franklin Roosevelt. Worse, if Bill Clinton could have run again, we’d have missed out on the statesmanship of Junior Bush. While US media called Chavez a “tyrant” for suggesting an end to term limits, they somehow forgot to smear the tyrant tag on Mr. Clinton for suggesting the same for the America.

We were not told this weekend’s referendum was a vote on term limits, rather, we were told by virtually every US news outlet that the referendum was to make Chavez, “President for Life.” The “President for Life” canard was mis-reported by no less than The New York Times.

But ending term limits does not mean winning the term. As Chavez himself told me, “It’s up to the people” whether he gets reelected. And that infuriates the US Powers That Be.

<snip>

Term limits and work hours in Venezuela? Why was this a crisis for Washington?

Why is the Bush crew so bonkers about Hugo? Is it because Venezuela sits on the world’s largest reserve of coconuts?

Chavez’ continuing tenure means that Venezuelans’ huge supply of oil will now be in the hands of … Venezuelans!

As Arturo Quiran, resident of a poor folks’ housing complex, told me, “Ten, fifteen years ago … there was a lot of oil money here in Venezuela but we didn’t see it.” Notably, Quiran doesn’t particularly agree with Chavez’ politics. But, he thought Americans should understand that under Chavez’ Administration, there’s a doctor’s office in his building with “free operations, x-rays, medicines. Education also. People who never knew how to read and write now know how to sign their own papers.”

Not everyone is pleased. As one TV news anchor, violently anti-Chavez, told me in derisive tones, “Chavez gives them (the poor) bricks and bread!” - how dare he! - so, they vote for him.

<snip>

Chavez has committed other crimes in Washington’s eyes. Not only has this uppity brown man spent Venezuela’s oil wealth in Venezuela, he withdrew $20 billion from the US Federal Reserve. Weirdly, Venezuela’s previous leaders, though the nation was dirt poor, lent billions to the US Treasury on crap terms. Chavez has said, Basta! to this game, and has called for keeping South America’s capital in … South America! Oh, no!

Oh, and did I mention that Chavez told Exxon it had to pay more than a 1% royalty to his nation on the heavy crude the company extracted?

And that’s why they have to kill him. In 2002, The New York Times sickeningly applauded the coup d’etat against Chavez. But that failed. Therefore, as the electorate of Venezuela is obstinately refusing to vote as Condi Rice tells them, there’s only one solution left for democracy-loving Bush-niks, the view express out loud by our President’s spiritual advisor, Pat Robertson:

“We have this enemy to our south controlling a huge pool of oil. Hugo Chavez thinks we’re trying to assassinate him. I think we ought to go ahead and do it. … … We don’t need another $200 billion war … It’s a whole lot easier to have some covert operatives do the job.”

<snip>

It’s worth noting that Chavez’ personal popularity doesn’t extend to all his plans for “Bolivarian” socialism. And that killed his referendum at the ballot box. I guess Chavez should have asked Jeb Bush how to count votes in a democracy.
So there you have it. Some guy who thinks he can take Venezuela’s oil and oil money and just give it away to Venezuelans. And these same Venezuelans have the temerity to demand the right to pick the president of their choice! What is the world coming to?

In Orwellian Bush-speak and Times-talk, Chavez’ referendum was portrayed before the vote as a trick, a kind of “Saddam goes Latin.” Maybe their real fear is that Chavez has brought a bit of economic justice through the ballot box, a trend that could spread northward. Think about it: Chavez is funding full health care for all Venezuelans. What if that happened here?
http://www.gregpalast.com/fear-of-chavez-is-fear-of-democracy/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
fourier jr said:
Yes it is. That's the only government that has attempted to overthrow Chavez. The next worst thing I know of is Spain's King telling Chavez to shut up.
QUOTE]

The next worst thing? If that's the case, I guess it isn't very bad then. Case closed.

Spain's king should have slapped him withthe back of his hand.
 
  • #28
Yonoz said:
Does that spot last six hours?
No. Hogging six hours of media time in this country is a sure way to get yourself booed out.
 
  • #29
Posted up thread about the US:
..That's the only government that has attempted to overthrow Chavez
fourier jr said:
That thing says the National Endowment for Democracy supported Chavez's opposition, which led to Chavez being overthrown, which is basically what I've been saying:
Nonsense. Making common cause with foreign opposition to tyrants or wannabe tyrants is not an 'overthrow' of the government any more than criticizing the Chavez government here is an attempt to 'overthrow' it.
It is my take on the various media reports (and my hope that) the United States broadly and publicly: supports democratic opposition to the mullahs in Iran; publicly supports the monks in opposition to the generals in Burma; has supported democratic opposition to the totalitarian government in China; urges Pakistan to reverse marshal law. And the '02 Venezuela OIG report clearly shows that the US supports, i.e. has talked with, makes common cause with democratic groups in V., as supported by acts of congress, that oppose moves towards totalitarian government in V. This is all to be applauded as none of it is anything close an to an attempt to 'overthrow' or stage a US 'coup' in Venezuela. The 'overthrow' comment should be retracted.

Pure flood. Please no floods on PF.
 
  • #30
mheslep said:
No, The Republic of Fourier is the only government that has to attempted to overthrow Chavez.

Ok, please site some evidence, just a little bit of non-conspiracy minded evidence that backs up that outrageous 'overthrow' claim.

Would that be a Fourier transform? :D

I don't know, this whole Chavez-president-for-life idea seems like a Catch-22. If there's any intervention, then the rest of the world is "interfering with democracy", but sit back and watch and it becomes "Why was nothing done while a country went down the drain?".
 
  • #31
mheslep said:
Nonsense. Making common cause with foreign opposition to tyrants or wannabe tyrants is not an 'overthrow' of the government any more than criticizing the Chavez government here is an attempt to 'overthrow' it.
It is my take on the various media reports (and my hope that) the United States broadly and publicly: supports democratic opposition to the mullahs in Iran; publicly supports the monks in opposition to the generals in Burma; has supported democratic opposition to the totalitarian government in China; urges Pakistan to reverse marshal law. And the '02 Venezuela OIG report clearly shows that the US supports, i.e. has talked with, makes common cause with democratic groups in V., as supported by acts of congress, that oppose moves towards totalitarian government in V. This is all to be applauded as none of it is anything close an to an attempt to 'overthrow' or stage a US 'coup' in Venezuela. The 'overthrow' comment should be retracted.

Chavez was democratically elected twice & is hardly a tyrant. That lie should be retracted. You're saying Chavez's government compares with a military dictatorship like the one in Burma? That lie should be retracted. When democratically-elected Chavez was overthrown in 2002, it was the military that supported it, and the US (the CIA-front "National Endowment for Democracy") supporting the Venezuelan military. That short-lived government had more in common with the current situation in Burma than having a democratically-elected president. I'm sure if MI6 or Canada's CSIS did any of the things that the CIA has done on the list above to the US the US would be furious. If the truth is so painful to you maybe you're not cut out to be a scientist, which makes me wonder why you post here. I also read that the US supports the opposition in Burma. That probably just means that Halliburton & Blackwater don't have interests there, Burma has no oil, and Israel's government hasn't accused Burma of anti-semitism.
 
  • #32
dst said:
I don't know, this whole Chavez-president-for-life idea seems like a Catch-22. If there's any intervention, then the rest of the world is "interfering with democracy", but sit back and watch and it becomes "Why was nothing done while a country went down the drain?".

That's a lie, there's no other way to put it. Chavez's government proposed lifting term limits, and nothing more.
 
  • #33
fourier jr said:
Chavez was democratically elected twice ...
Yes, and that's why its improper and illegal for that government to be forcibly overthrown. But before putting him on a democratic pedestal recall the Nazis came to power democratically in '32, and then promptly chucked the democracy.

& is hardly a tyrant. That lie should be retracted.
I suggest he's a wannabe, on the order of Fidel, an admittedly subjective claim based on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez" [Broken]
"A career military officer, Chávez founded the left-wing Fifth Republic Movement after orchestrating a failed 1992 coup d'état against former President
Carlos Andrés Pérez."
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/4/dinges.asp" [Broken]
...media outlets have accused the Chávez administration of intimidating their journalists using specially-dispatched gangs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm" [Broken]
on TV station shut down
Argentinian Business daily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez#_note-140"
"a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela"

You're saying Chavez's government compares with a military dictatorship like the one in Burma? That lie should be retracted.
No, of course not. Strawman.

When democratically-elected Chavez was overthrown in 2002, it was the military that supported it, and the US (the CIA-front "National Endowment for Democracy") supporting the Venezuelan military.
So you say. I say BS.

Edit:
Attached is your boy in action in '92.
 

Attachments

  • Hugo_Chávez_(1992_Coup_Surrender).jpg
    Hugo_Chávez_(1992_Coup_Surrender).jpg
    11.6 KB · Views: 597
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
fourier jr said:
CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela
November 28th 2007, by Eva Golinger
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2914
Golinger? Will there be an equally informed follow up from Britney Spears? Hopefully the two, working together, can solve the grassy knoll mystery.
 
  • #35
mheslep said:
Yes, and that's why its improper and illegal for that government to be forcibly overthrown. But before putting him on a democratic pedestal recall the Nazis came to power democratically in '32, and then promptly chucked the democracy.

democracy is an ideal. just like many other systems, they never tend to work in the way they were initially intended. That's why as common ppl we should not always just take everything at face-value or straight away believe in anything our govt propagandists throw at us.

But more often than not, we tend to think that our own democracy is great while others' version of democracy is crap just because they don't elect ppl who agree with us or share our own vision.
 
<h2>What is the reason behind the protests in Venezuela against Chavez's referendum?</h2><p>The protests in Venezuela are in response to President Hugo Chavez's proposal to amend the country's constitution in order to extend his term limits and consolidate his power. This has caused widespread concern among citizens who believe it could lead to authoritarian rule.</p><h2>When did the protests against Chavez's referendum begin?</h2><p>The protests began in early 2007, when President Chavez announced his intention to hold a referendum to amend the constitution. However, the protests intensified in the months leading up to the referendum vote in December 2007.</p><h2>How have the protests impacted the country?</h2><p>The protests have caused significant disruptions in daily life in Venezuela, including road closures, strikes, and clashes between protesters and security forces. The country's economy has also been affected, with businesses and industries experiencing losses due to the unrest.</p><h2>What has been the response of the Venezuelan government to the protests?</h2><p>The government has responded to the protests with a heavy-handed approach, using tear gas, water cannons, and other measures to disperse protesters. President Chavez has also accused the opposition of inciting violence and attempting to destabilize the country.</p><h2>What is the current status of the referendum and the protests?</h2><p>The referendum was held in December 2007, and the proposed amendments were approved by a narrow margin. However, the opposition has challenged the results, and the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legitimacy of the vote. Protests continue to occur in Venezuela, with both sides showing no signs of backing down.</p>

What is the reason behind the protests in Venezuela against Chavez's referendum?

The protests in Venezuela are in response to President Hugo Chavez's proposal to amend the country's constitution in order to extend his term limits and consolidate his power. This has caused widespread concern among citizens who believe it could lead to authoritarian rule.

When did the protests against Chavez's referendum begin?

The protests began in early 2007, when President Chavez announced his intention to hold a referendum to amend the constitution. However, the protests intensified in the months leading up to the referendum vote in December 2007.

How have the protests impacted the country?

The protests have caused significant disruptions in daily life in Venezuela, including road closures, strikes, and clashes between protesters and security forces. The country's economy has also been affected, with businesses and industries experiencing losses due to the unrest.

What has been the response of the Venezuelan government to the protests?

The government has responded to the protests with a heavy-handed approach, using tear gas, water cannons, and other measures to disperse protesters. President Chavez has also accused the opposition of inciting violence and attempting to destabilize the country.

What is the current status of the referendum and the protests?

The referendum was held in December 2007, and the proposed amendments were approved by a narrow margin. However, the opposition has challenged the results, and the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legitimacy of the vote. Protests continue to occur in Venezuela, with both sides showing no signs of backing down.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
Back
Top