President’s Day Down South
Here it is, another glorious President’s day, and wouldn’t you know it world leaders are exchanging presents. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has sent one President Obama’s way:
President Hugo Chávez handily won a referendum on Sunday that will end presidential term limits, allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely and injecting fresh vibrancy into his socialist-inspired revolution.
The results, coming after voters had rejected a similar effort by Mr. Chávez just 15 months ago, pointed to his resilience after a decade in power, as well as to the fragmentation of his opposition, which as recently as November had won key mayoralties and governorships.
The vote opens the way not only for Mr. Chávez to run for a new six-year term when his current one expires in 2013, but could also bolster his ambitious agenda as an icon of the left and a counterweight to American policies in Latin America.
It also creates a new foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration, strengthening a leader who has made a career of taunting and deriding the United States, even though Mr. Chávez just this weekend seemed to open the door for a different relationship.
Chavez is not going away anytime soon, and with the petro status of Venezuela remaining significant, both as to the US and as a vehicle for Chavez to spread influence in Latin America, Barack Obama needs to fashion a coherent policy for Latin America as a whole and Venezuela in particular. President Obama has shown a refreshing tendency in foreign policy to address glaring problems head on and, unlike the previous Bush Administration, actually use intelligence instead of muscle.
A heavy fist and a thumbed nose was about all the subtlety George Bush showed in his Latin American foreign policy; it is time for that to change. With the decline and fall of Fidel Castro in Cuba, and brother Raul being both slightly more progressive and not long for office himself, coupled with Chavez’s newfound extended lease on power and inability to know what to do the Obama agency of change, it is time for a new direction on both. We don’t need to all be best friends, but we need to quit being intransigent enemies for the sake of nothing more than needing to make each other a villain to play off of. President Obama can stop the stupid; he should.
I agree the stupid should be stopped. But Chavez is as frightening as our “stinking of sulfur” former President.
It should be a primer on authoritarianism to watch the Frontline special:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…..ugochavez/
Well, maybe, but irrespective of who he is, Chavez is there and looks to stay there. There are always methods and policies available to box people like this in and effectively neuter them, or at least enough so to effect your purpose. We need to start attempting that as opposed to useless bluster and demonization.
Good idea.
Just one or two things already on the plate, though.
When the administration can get any focus on the rest of this hemisphere, I think that Cuba has to be where we start.
what give you the fucking right to do this:
you seem to believe that America has the right to trap people into compliance, or force people into compliance
[edited by moderator to remove personal insult]
those who don’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it
got any reason to justify your all to keep repeating the mistakes of the past ???
the policies of collusion have been a disaster, why keep making the same mistakes, over and over ???
He heh Ouch, I feel so spanked……
Can I have desert now?
Not until you apologize to tanbark for agreeing.
drational, comparing Chavez to Bush is not quite bright. The Frontline special showed some of Chavez’s lesser qualities, to put it kindly. Chavez does disappoint on occasion. He sometimes disappoints greatly. But in this respect he reminds me more of Obama, not Bush.
Frontline did report some of Chavez’s admirable qualities and accomplishments. But even this was more naughty than good because it wasn’t done even to provide “balance.” It was done to camouflage a hatchet job. And you are an example of their having succeeded to some extent.
bmaz – i think your offer an intelligent suggestion.. it will be interesting to see if the usa under obama is able to implement anything positive in this region.. it always seems like the usa loves to hate certain regions( cuba venezuala and etc) and has not figured out how to grow up.. ‘maybe’ obama will be different in this respect… one can hope!
By working on Cuba you are already working on Venezuela the way they have intertwined themselves the last few years. It is not an either/or proposition.
Macaq @3 – yes, and note I am not saying we need to become best friends with the volatile and erreatic Chavez, just that there is a more sane and less confrontational path available.
Absolutely agree. The same public offer of friendship thst Obama applied to Iran should go to Chavez.
I just want to see really substantive change, based on aiding the populace, applied to Cuba. The time so right now, as you said.
i never said it was an either/or proposition…
Jimmy Carter changed the tone of relations with Latin America by releasing the Panama Canal ownership to Panama.
Obama could do the same by ending the embargo on Cuba and rethinking policy with regards to Colombia and Ecuador.
For the near term, the most influential Latin American nations are Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Venezuela and Bolivia are moving to prove the viability of autocratic socialist politics (that is and observation not a value judgment). Is Chavez really to the left of Lula and Nestor Kirchener? Or just more autocratic?
Excellent, bmaz, and thank you.
Positive ‘change’ would be most welcome.
Chavez is not an enemy to the people of the United States.
It would be foolish, in the extreme, to insist upon making him one.
perhaps you wanted to address that to post #3
I admit it. It was me.
Ya didn’t have to rat me out, though.
Correct. sorry about that.
BMAZ, agree with you. It is just incredible that we still try to isolate Cuba after we have recognized and have normal relations with every other communist country in the world.
You are correct in saying that Chavez is going to be around for awhile and we might as well have normal, if not cordial, relations. Although I must say that Caracas is one of the scariest cities I have ever been in.
Nice to see Mike Bloomberg’s idea about those silly term limits is catching on.
As Barack Obama said, when Bill Clinton heard about it, he said, “You can do that?”
And W said having a dictator might be OK, just so long as it was him.
Some of the policies dear to Clark Clifford’s postbellum vision need to develop into a modernized presence in the region. Ethnologically, there are reasons the sociology of the southern hemisphere is difficult to juxtapose with what occurred in the New World in the northern hemisphere in the Americas. Environment and institutional democracy are keys, in my view. Obama needs to join Ms. Clinton in efforts with leaders such as Fernandez de Kirchner and Bachellet; and, in a predictable absurdity, Morales likely is open to negotiations. They have a new regional hegemon, at least from the petrocurrency point of view, but I think the latinamerican populace continually will opt for freedoms, something the VZ neoNapoleon has yet to realize, and probably will not, as long as he senses his future imperiled in politics by the curmudgeons of the North. Ew probably has strong views on the region, too, as one of the professor’s early research projects involved a famous regional military person turned patron of the arts, heartell.
Hugo Chavez is no saint, and he gets out of his shorts about consolidating power for himself, but in the years he’s been in power, he’s done more to help Venezuealans of poor and modest incomes (which is most of them) than all of the U.S. sanctioned governments preceding him, for decades, if not all of them, period.
He’s also broken the petro-elite down there and has made it clear that he believes that their oil belongs to ALL Venezuealans, not just the small ricos.
As for “boxing him in” to “effect our purpose”, that’s a rightwing fantasy. He is part and parcel of the new populist movement that’s growing in Central and South America, and I think it’s too late to worry about re-instating the kind of leadership personified by Augusto Pinochet and the rest of the user-friendly to U.S. corporate interests governments that we’ve enjoyed down there for so long. They are on the wane, and they should be.
Where did I say anything about the old haggard US hegemony Pinochet style? The answer is I didn’t in the least. My point is simply that the whole Chavez act with respect to the US is predicated on the US being belligerent to him and Venezuela. If you remove the belligerence for belligerence’s sake, you take away his act and neutralize it. We don’t have to be his best friend, but there is no reason whatsoever to be inflated false enemies simply for the sake of having an enemy foil. He is what he is, but he is far from the worst malefactor extant in the world today; there is a far more intelligent and productive way to deal with him, his country, and the entire region. And it is darn near 180 degrees from what Bush/Cheney did.
I am in agreement. I admire Chavez and feel he has been given a bum rap. He is a popularly elected leader. The reason he is popular is because he has done much for the majority/poor. He has given them direct participation in the society, medical clinics, education and hope. That is why he keeps getting elected. Oil money is being used to help people not just the well connected. He also supports other Latin governments that are working to represent their people rather than just the monied interests
Mr. Chavez’ rule has weakened the oligarchic structure, but hasn’t caused any real diffusion of political power.
He has used a decent portion of the oil money on programs that help the poor and one can hope that this continues despite the drop in oil revenues
There is, however, concern about whether Mr Chavez will continue to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
I agree that we should change our policy down there, but, as I said, the notion that we can, or should, ”box him in” as you said, to effect our purpose, is, again, just a rightwing fantasy. At this point, it’s clear that most Venezuealans support Chavez, and the programs he’s instituting. After all the years in which the U.S. looked the other way as one government after another kept a huge segment of the Venezuealan population in poverty, they deserve the chance to make what they can of Chavez’ revolution, whether it’s socialist or not.
As for ”working on Cuba” the U.S. has been ”working on them”, including several assassination attempts on Castro, for a long, long, time.
Dave Barry, speaking of the CIA in one of his humor columns, said it well:
”The Central Intelligence Agency…proudly overthrowing Fidel Castro for 50 years.”
Prior to Castro, the U.S. controlled 90% of the Cuban economy through the sugar industry, alone. I think we’ve worked on them enough. Drop the sanctions and leave them alone, so their attempt at socialism can fail or succeed, on it’s own merits, or lack of them.
Pardon me for pointing out that you seem not to have read the original post. That, and the comments concerning Cuba, are in accord with amity rather than belligerence.
Crikey, I freaking agree with you and you still want to pick a false fight. What’s up with that??
Why do “we” have to box him in? Why do “we” have to think that Venezuela is any kind of threat to the US?
What has he done to me?
What has he done to the USA? I recall him offering low cost heating oil to Americans. Do you?
I recall having the price of gas jerked by who?
thanks bmaz and thanks for the posts..
you have to sing the Internationali first, just to show your contrition
it worked fer me …
Bmaxz dumb statement, dumb concept, what’s up with that?
Oh I forgot, Latin America is OUR backyard. We need to clean it up. hahahahahaha
What exactly has Mr. Chavez done bmaz that you find so objectionalble?
deafening silence here
What in the world are you jabbering about? Where do you come up with this bunk? I said box him in by taking away the belligerence to him and his country, then what can he rail at. If you actually read stuff instead of going off half cocked, you would know that.
The term box him in suggests that something he is doing is harming this country.
He’s belligerent? Well what would you expect if the USA had attempted / backed a coup?
The USA has been beating up on him from day one. Why should he not be refrigerant to the USA?
Ah, ‘box him in’ with reasonableness and peaceful behaviors.
I knew I must have ‘processed’ your comment amiss, bmaz.
Venezuela might well offer us an opportunity of waging peace, relentlessly, honorably and unambiguously …
An excellent ‘test case’, bmaz.
DW
He’s not the one to worry about, anyway. Lithium Morales in Bolivia is, he’s got all our battery material. And China’s making deals.
what’s he doing with OUR battery material
this is like those Iraqis who tried to keep OUR oil
guees we’ll have to invade their country, destroy all the government institutions, and create a new government to sign those contracts with China
but if we’re ever gonna make any money at this, we’re gonna need a bigger army …
/bushism
Yes, bmaz, you has some ‘clarifying’ to do, unless you want us thinking that you’ve got some Manifest Destiny thingie spinning around someplace.
Have you reasons for making such statements?
Considering that you are, usually, open-minded and even-handed …
We awaits … patiently.
I never could figure that one out
I am anxious to see how Obi explains his escalation in Afghanistan and exactly what IS the threat from rag tag groups like the Taliban to the USA.
What could they possibly want over here? And why do we need to fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here. Haven’t we proven that hooey?
Between 1999-2001 we repeatedly asked the Taliban for something and they didn’t give it to us. We’re still looking for it.
There is no proof that Bin Laden caused 911. I would suggest that if there was a case the USA should conduct a trial in absentia or lay out a case.
I suspect that the truth of 911 would horrify Americans because it is more than likely that some helpers were involved and they were from the ME.
Exactly why does the Taliban have to turn anyone over to the USA? Would you liked to be turned over to the Taliban because they made a demand?
Couldn’t we just take his word for it?
You might look into the reasons why, in 1999, the UN started demanding that bin Laden be turned over.
O come on, Take his word? Has he signed a witnessed statement? Or do you just believe everything you see on the evening news as gospel truth?
Most of the “news” today is pure propaganda manufactured to sway the masses. The CIA is in every major news organization and the USA has admitted to fabricating news reports over the past 8 years.
Where is the connect the dots to Bin Laden and 911?
Are there those who want to USA out of the ME and have so stated it in the strongest terms? … have attacked our warships and installations in THEIR countries? You betcha. While you may not like the tactic, just explain to me why we are over there with such a massive military presence?
How would you feel about Yemini bases in Pennsylvania? or Libyan warships anchored of Miami?
Check this out:
Cujo’s on the front page…
I’ve always maintained that it’s far cheaper to buy resources than build a huge military and fight for them.
Pups this is the site for what’s going down in the economy front
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
We are living through the moment when the curtain is pulled up and the Wizzard of Oz is revealed. Our notion of wealth is BS, or faith in the free market was misplaced, our belief that capitalism was a system to raise all ships wrong, that the masters of the universe were nothing but greedy miscreants, that our nation’s government has been set up to funnel money the workers to the wealthy, not the reverse, that the founding principles are not worth the paper they are written on, that we are a nation of men of privilege no a nation of laws.
Welcome to the land of Oz. See the emperor’s shiny new clothes.
correction
they weren’t from the ME
What if the president was named Schickelgruber? What if we attacked all the people raising really silly arguments? How do I know that Al Gore didn’t invent this web site?
I’m uncertain what this phrase is intended to convey. how to deal with? how he will be affected by?
Re: Chavez and Morales. A time tested way to deal with non-threatening countries is via diplomacy. Are we willing to concede a country becomes a threat when they achieve bargaining parity by virtue of having a resource we want or need?
It’s also worth considering whether our actions are/were a significant causative factor in some of the Chavez behavior we’re decrying. Perhaps a unilateral shift in our approach (and the constant media drumbeat)could make a difference.
The media’s presentation of Chavez has stunk of propaganda from the git-go.
that’s the naked truth of the bush doctrine
I would say that has been the ‘policy’ of virtually every American administration since WWII, FP.
Bu$h Co merely pushed the envelope to the most belligerent extreme.
We have long viewed the ‘lower’ Americas through the lens of Manifest Destiny, particularly as regards America’s Own Ari$tocracy.
The above quote was from the conclusion of the main post. I am still at a lack of understanding why SanderO and whoever else thought I was being so heinous. Just don’t get it.
Well, in my case, I read your post with which I agreed completely, I made a comment indicating same, and then was called away to deal with other ‘things’, upon returning, I was directed back to your comment @2 where I found this: “There are always methods and policies available to box people like this in and effectively neuter them, or at least enough to effect your purpose.” Which, frankly, bmaz, struck me as being quite unlike what I had perceived in the post above, as well as rather similar to ‘policies’ of manipulation with the intent of ‘effecting’ ‘control’ or forcing another nation to open itself to ‘our’ ‘purposes’. This set off alarm bells for me which is why I asked you, since it seemed unlike what I have come to respect and appreciate about you.
That is why @ 35, I asked you to clarify what you meant.
I am certain, that as an attorney you understand all too well how words (and intentions) may, all too easily, be misconstrued, or misinterpreted.
Hmmmm, must get better at editing,
Preview
is
muh
fren,
edit: IN you mind, please remove, in the first paragraph “… which is why I asked you …”
Yea Obi should change the policy toward other nations. We agree.
As an American lawyer living in Venezuela for the last two years, I’ve had the opportunity to closely observe the actions of President Chavez and the aggressively vocal oppositional climate in which he has had to operate. I also read many U.S. Blogs, which seem to parrot the anti-Chavez views of that opposition and the U.S. Media. Sorry, Bmaz, but that seems to include you, even as you reasonably suggest that rather than decapitating Chavez, we should put him in a box. Please examine where your views on Chavez come from.
The vocal, wealthy opposition, which routinely loses in elections here, owns 90% of the media and newspapers, of which there are hundreds, which it uses, with the help of the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR and other U.S. papers, to claim to the world that Chavez has suppressed its freedom of speech and that Chavez is an “authoritarian dictator”, despite the fact that he and his supporters have won 13 out of 14 elections since 1998, all of which have been monitored and approved by international observers.
The folks who own the opposition newspapers here are part of the cabal that ruled Venezuela before Chavez and keep the vast majority of citizens in poverty and deprived of minimal government services. Believe me, they weren’t worried about democracy then. By official agreement at Punto Fijo, the two major parties agreed to alternate their election victories, thus sharing control of the oil wealth and its unofficial spoils that properly belonged to the Venezuelan people.
The active opposition here are the same owners of the big companies, including media companies, that actively participated in the illegal coup against the duly elected Chavez government in 2002. A coup which the U.S. government approved and partially financed.
These same opposition “democrats”’, after kidnapping Chavez and falsely announcing through their media that he had resigned, put the former head of the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce in his place. Pedro Carmona, proceeded to dissolve the elected National Assembly, abolish the Supreme Court, jail Chavez supporters without cause or charges, and refused even to call new elections.
These are the folks that are claiming Chavez is a “authoritarian dictator”, when Chavez’s every move has been to respect the Constitution and the laws. He even pardoned those involved in the 2002 coup.
Had he been the “authoritarian strong man” as the U.S. media claims, wouldn’t he have shot them or minimally jailed them for treason?
This putative “strong man” has, since 1998, put the oil profits to the service of the people. His programs have virtually eradicated illiteracy in Venezuela through sending teams of teachers throughout the country into every small pueblo. He has created thousands of free neighborhood medical, dental and eye care clinics, providing services to millions who had no access to such care under previous governments. He has provided free education to the doctoral level, with living stipends to the students, as well as extremely cheap government markets and even public restaurants where a good three course meal can be had for a $l.00. His government subsidizes the creation of worker cooperative and small private businesses, as well as home purchases.
The Chavez government has passed labor laws to insure that workers are protected, provided with safe working conditions, vacations, and even Christmas bonuses. His Constitution, passed in 2000, provides a Constitutional right to join a union. He is now trying to implement a 6 hour work day for 8 hours pay law with a view to giving workers more time with their families and for education and community activities.
Chavez is a natural born teacher and historian who gives high priority to educating his citizens, reading to them on TV out of books he finds interesting, including Noam Chomsky, and fully explaining his goals, and the thinking behind them, on his weekly TV program. His goal is to create a socialist society in Venezuela where human beings, not profits, are the top priority. He takes live questions and routinely answers personal requests for assistance.
He is also a warm, earthy human being from a humble background who is unafraid to say exactly what he thinks. Had many of us on the Left in the U.S. had the opportunity to stand before the world’s leaders at the UN and call George Bush the devil, there would have been a waiting line several miles long. Chavez had the opportunity to tell the truth and he took it.
Neither Chavez nor his government have kidnapped anyone, tortured anyone, jailed anyone in Guantanamo or secret jails without charges, attorney or Red Cross contact. He has not invaded any other countries, legally or otherwise. He has not condoned any extra judicial executions, as has President Uribe of neighboring Colombia. Chavez has not trampled on the civil liberties provisions of his Constitution, as has Bush and Cheney.
How odd it is that those from the democratic Left who clearly understand how the U.S. media intentionally distorted the truth about Iraq and many other issues to support Bush’s policies, nonetheless seem to accept as the “God’s Honest Truth” the lies told by that same media about Hugo Chavez.
Chavez is a successful socialist leader who promotes real participatory democracy in his country. This is why the U.S. ruling class and their media fears him and seeks to demonizes him.
Isn’t it about time the blogger world wakes up and looks at the source for its ideas about Chavez? Isn’t it about time the blogger world demanded factual information, not pap, about the reality of Chavez and Venezuela.
Any idea why Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch criticises Chavez’s regime. Are the things they decry intrinsic to the way things are there?
Isn’t it about time for you to actually read the post? Perhaps if you don’t have enough time to do that, you can just refer to the comment at #56 above. There, I even put in a link for you. I don’t know who the heck all these straw men you have bandied about are, but you clearly didn’t pay particularly adroit attention to what I wrote before you came calling with your piety.
My apologies to Bmaz. After re-reading his post and a number of comments that followed it, I realize that I ended up falsly thinking that to him comments included the “putting Chavez in a box”. My comment was, therefore, directed to those sharing a pervasive negative attitude about Chavez which arises, I believe, from the nature of our press’s attacks on him.
I do apologize, and would remove the comment directed at Bmaz were that editing feature available. His comments about his hopes for a new attitude toward Latin America by the Obama administration are measured and sensible.
I would, however, direct those who are citing the Human Rights Watch criticism as fashioned in gold to the critical letter to Human Rights Watch from 100 academics, specialists in Latin America, who shredded the HRW report for its factual errors, ommisions and bias:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/12/17-2
I thought that I asked you a couple of questions soliciting your opinion.
Is their anything in my post to you that suggests that I endorse any particular view? Is it necessary for you to be quite so thin-skinned?
You’re right, your post does not indicate any particularly allegiance to the Human Rights Watch report, but there are many on the Left who use that report to slam Chavez, without addressing the issues raised by the 100 Latin American specialists who criticized it.
For another critique of the report, you might be interested in reading
an article by Greg Wilpert, editor of Venezuelanalysis, at:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3812
Thank you. I had originally asked about the HRW report because I had read their report about the judicial system in Iraq and had been amazed at how unrealistic and petty it seemed.
Sometimes, I wonder if the rude (and often, apparently inexplicable) animosity and outright (it is certainly not ‘upright’) anger that sometimes develops between those who comment here, requires concentrated ‘effort’ or whether it merely reflects natural ‘talent’ or simply the bad manners of over-tired children.
Frankly, it becomes none of those who engage in it (unless it comes to be ‘characteristic’).
It always becomes tedious, however.
Perhaps my less than happily effusive words will allow the disgruntled to rally together in common defense of their behaviors and direct their umbrage, in concert towards me.
Such a ‘development’ would amount to ‘progress’ and would allow me me the delicious pleasure of laughing my ass off at the strangeness of bedfellows herein.
It may be that, in the realm of curmudgeonly accomplishment, I am in the presence of mere amateurs; simple posers, as it were?
Let us see who takes me seriously?
;~D
You? You’re probably the most agreeable person around here.
Merely a pose, I assure you, macaquerman, merely a pose.
I simply cannot work up sufficient vitriol with the pussycats here to vex myself into any state worthy of disgruntlement, when the true assailants of humanity strut about unconcerned, fat, happy, and still, largely, at it.
Can’t waste my disdain on simple word-hackers or trollish dolts.
Indeed they form but simple ‘amusement’ for a confirmed curmudgeon such as myself.
I enjoy them thoroughly, but I would prefer discussions of substance to the simple, if tedious, cussing matches found here.
;~D
Mostly, here, there are discussions of depth and merit.
And I would be remiss not to say that, in general, I appreciate ALL those thoughtful souls I find here, in fact it is, usually, quite stellar, the time spent here, among the denizens of the lake and especially among the gang of the wheelhouse.
Truth to tell.
This is a most amicable place.
You’re a disgrace to curmudgeons. Try sandpaper in the bathroom and rock salt in your shoes.
Piffle!
Now then, mocker of man, don’t monkey around with apes more upright than your fuzzy wee self, lest your simian superiors use their sapient wit with rapier grace and you, you lesser primate end with eggs on your face.
Remember always, you brachiant twit, to keep to your place and measure your gait else you’ll certainly end up on somebody’s plate.
Oh seely men, I fart in your general direction!
A grand and glorious nocturnal passage to you as well, oh bmaz of wheel-dom.
A pleasure to hang out with such clever monkeys as gather hereabouts.
;~D
Bmaz, if you think that saying we have to box Chavez in by effectively neutering him, is agreeing with me, then, it’s not MY reading skills that need brushing up on.
And, just to be fair, what kind of working on Cuba WERE you talking about?
At this point, your continually insulting, rude attitude toward me and extreme intransigence is simply not worth any more of my time.
Justin@57 gets the hammer-nail-bang award for the week.
Let’s box it up and effectively send it to him. :o)
Bmaz, are you in favor of dropping the sanctions on Cuba?
Do you support dropping the ban against travelling there for U.S. citizens?
Are you willing to permit Cuban sugar to be sold in the U.S., to compete with the U.S. Sugar Growers Association barons? (They’re the ones who annually spend the most, lobbying congress to continue to block normalizing relations with Cuba and opening our markets to them. I think the crocodile tears they weep about the oppressed Cuban people are bullshit. I think they want to keep locks on the sugar board. What do you think?
And; after the Bay of Pigs invasion; a half century of sanctions and threats, and the largely successul attempts to isolate Cuba, and several efforts to assassinate Castro, including at least one that was mob-aided, talking about “working” on Cuba, without giving specifics, is straight out of the Lindsay Graham school of “diplomacy”.
Thanks but no thanks.
For the hell of it, I am going to attempt to reply about what was suggested by the author concerning how we should address Cuba.
If you read the last paragraph of the post, it says that thr heavy fist and thumbed nose approach of the Bush administration should be changed.
What does that suggest to you?
BMaz, you’re the one who’s talking about dealing with Chavez in the same terms as the repubican knee-jerks who’ve been successful at dictating our gunboat-diplomacy policies in Latin America for a couple of centuries. If pointing that out is “rude and insulting”, then perhaps you should let your piece sit for a while and then re-read it, before you post it.
Mac, It suggests to me that BMaz, and you, are covering all the bases, and trying to do it with a mix of the republican hammer with a dash of “progressive” yeast, thrown in for leavening.
Bmaz stated that we needed to box Chavez in, to effect our purpose. That is not change; that is the same old rhetoric that we’ve been hearing for decades, and if you aren’t aware of it, then either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re shaving points for the republicans.
He also bundled them in with Cuba, so we could “work” on both of them.
He didn’t say specifically what “work” he wanted to do, which is why I asked him a few specific questions about that.
Since he feels that I’m being rude and insulting, feel free to answer them, yourself. :o)
President Obama can stop the stupid. Can you?
The box him in is a reference to using polite talk so that Chavez will no longer engage in his harsh rhetoric. The whole damn point of the post is to suggest that antagonism between this country and the other countries in the hemisphere cease.
Either accept that people here say what they mean or don’t. but stop insisting that it be said over and over.
There is no need to waste further time on someone that is belligerently and recalcitrantly concern trolling for no sane reason other than being obstreperous.
Last night, EW suggested that you might be prone to hit the liquor while you were assuming her post.
Did she leave enough?
and the comment about neutering Chavez ???
I took this post as a Chavez bashing hidden inside a bush bashing
why ??? this might explain:
I never viewed Hugo Chavez as one of America’s “Glaring Problems”
we got a shitload of people trying to kill us just cuz we’re Americans, and Hugo Chavez ain’t one of em
the dude is selling discount heating oil to low income Americans, how the fuck is this guy a problem ???
so I got a natural tendency to defend Hugo from what I see as an unwarented attack
I think we should emulate hugo
if the Democrats provide healthcare for the poor, the repuglitards might all spontaneously combust, and we’d have a lot better world to live in
even if the repuglitrds don’t self-combust, we’d still be better off …
Yes !! You’re just so right. bmaz is sneskily sending CIA surgical teams south!!! Not just the oil, but the Chavez jewels are coming to warm our cities and shrivel untto raisinhood by our hearth.
No matter what anyone says, glaring problems in OUR conduct will always be addressed, not in amity, but in bilious but obtuse persistence in error.
Keep on rock(heading) in the free world.
The scalpelulous bmaz (henceforth to be known as the ‘fixer’) would incisively separate, with ‘patience’ and ‘reason’, the ‘weep’ from the chaffer …
‘Twould be quite a ‘change’ from the credo of previous ‘policy’-blundering staff-gaffers.
Goddamn, that was good. Gotta go.
I mean, Chavez has now won four elections, for himself, and most recently, for the removal of term limits. They have generally been conceded to be fair, as observed by Jimmy Carter and some organizations who watched and studied them.
When someone talks about “boxing him in”, to effect our purposes, some of us are concerned about why we should box him in, and to what purpose?
Again, if Bmaz won’t condescend to answer, then feel free, yourself.
Woodpeckers. Many, many woodpeckers. because the bark is veery, very thick
Mac, I appreciate your translating for Bmaz, but when he talked about boxing Chavez in to effect our purposes those…refinements, were left out of his original statment. Which is why I asked for clarification.
As for our “purposes” (which you ignored) Venezueala has a democratically elected leader who is demonstrably more concerned with raising the quality of life for most Venezuelans than was any government down there, for a long time.
And, it was BMaz who brought up Cuba, when he lumped them in with Venezuela. Since he, and presumably, you, are concerned about the antagonism between the U.S. and some Latin Countries, and since at least part of Bmaz’ thread sounded like the same old GOP stuff, I think it’s plenty fair to ask him, (and you) about that.
So. Would you be willing to “work” on those things I asked about, relative to Cuba?
“The bark is very, very, thick.”
It certainly is, especially when it’s composed of some of the same old republican nonsense about boxing people in for our purposes. :o)
Which reminds me, I haven’t heard of reaching out to improve relations with another country, described as boxing them in for our purposes. Somehow, I doubt that Chavez would respond favorably to the tactic.
You willing to drop the sanctions and travel ban on cuba, and allow their sugar to be sold here at a fair market price? Think of the savings we, with our compulsive sweet-tooth, could enjoy, not to mention how much that money could corrupt the evil socialist state of Cuba. :o)
Let’s cut to the chase here. Bmaz thinks of himself as a sacred cow. He thinks that whatever he puts up, no one should call him on it. I think that’s wrong. I think he has the same responsiblity to clarity and truth that the rest of us have.
And some of the statements he made about dealing with Chavez, were cut from the same cloth as what we got from Bush. If anyone thinks differently, I would submit that they’re not being honest; they’re just trying to stifle dissent here, and protect Bmaz’ ego.
And, of course, this goes back to our debate on Burris, where Bmaz was so concerned about protecting the “law” that we had to seat Burris instanter, instead of putting him on hold while the chamberpot of reality (as we’re now seeing)came down on Blago’s AND Burris’s heads.
I don’t think that pointing out these things is belligerent trolling; I think it’s just dealing with the truth.
And, judging from some of the other posters, there are other people who are…interested in talking about these things, too.
For example, can we start with finding out where Bmaz stands on changing policy toward Cuba?
Never mind that. Start with his tax returns. Then find out when they pick up his garbage. if you can, look under his bed for any shows that might be familiar.
Egg would not be the facepaste of choice, nor the material at hand.
But that’s the spirit!
A pleasure, macaquerman, to cross wits with the likes of yourself, always.
And now, by whatever means, I must hie myself thither to seek such repose as may be found for the wicked of soul and twisted of mind.
I bid you the best of evenings, macaquerman.
DW
Gentlemen, thanks for the flick and the invective.
Chavez bad, Saudis good
Chavez yukkie, AIPAC yummie
Chavez nightmare eyes, Putin pretty eyes
Bizarro world
I told a right-ish friend, more people are eating better, more are getting educated, more are getting healthcare since Chavez came to power when you can say that about the USA I will gladly listen to your bitching about Chavez.
Oh look, another that decided to blow in and not pay attention to what was written. Man, this is getting old. Who exactly is it that you allege was “bitching about Chavez”? Or did you just make that up for the hell of it?
This is an excellent summary of the new Chavez situation. I’m glad you took a slightly more optimistic approach to all of this. It’s true–this Chavez reelection and his new referendum could present dilemmas for the country and relations with the U.S. But President Obama has clearly shown that he is willing to extend a hand to Chavez in attempts to form a friendship with Venezuela. The reasons for doing so are endless–namely: oil, peace, Latin American policy, etc. Let’s hope that Obama continues on this path and Chavez does not have too many manipulative schemes underway. I watched an interesting video on all of this at newsy.com. It summarizes the election…definitely worth watching:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/ch…..residency/