Chávez Seeks to Restore Envoy to U.S.

[cal04]

Source: Reuters

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said he had proposed a former foreign minister as his ambassador to Washington in a move toward restoring normal ties with the United States.

Chavez expelled the U.S. envoy to Caracas in September and Washington responded by kicking out Venezuela's ambassador during a dispute over U.S. activities in Bolivia.

The Venezuelan leader made the announcement at a Summit of the Americas in Trinidad hours after he said he had no doubt relations with Washington would improve with U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/04/18/world/international-summit-chavez-usa.html

[monmouth]

1. Wow. Hugo is really getting into this......n/t

[bemildred]

2. This can't be right.

They're supposed to invade Poland now.

[EFerrari]

4. Don't whistle yet. We may hear next week that George did.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

3. He's always wanted to, afaik. BushCo kept trying to get him killed

or to destabilize the government so, it hasn't been exactly a cakewalk for him. Ditto for the other progressives in South America.

Obama is a fresh breeze that everyone was hoping for. :)

[janedum]

5. He likes Obama .. doesn't think he's a MORON like Bush nt

[EFerrari]

6. And Venezuela has usually had a good relationship with the US.

Here's hoping we get back to normal soon!

[ClarkUSA]

7. Pres. Obama is making all the right moves. I trust him to keep doing so.

[tomm2thumbs]

8. poor Fox - the tele-pubbies are going to implode - love it

at least it gives people like hannity and the rest something to live for. not that i wouldn't have it any other way, but if it weren't them, it would be someone else, so would rather have the idiots like beck and hannity and crew leading the charge with ignorance because it only goes so far in the long run.

[DissedByBush]

9. I do NOT like Chavez

I think he's a power-hungry demagogue.

But it's good that Obama is resuming normal relations. It's dumb to antagonize a nation that has never tried to hurt us.

[Peace Patriot]

11. The slanders against Chavez in our corpo/fascist press are wholly unjustified,

from what I can tell, after following Latin American events very closely for many years, and seeking out alternative news sources. I urge you to ask yourself how you got the impression that Chavez is a "power-hungry demagogue," and to consider whether you could defend it with facts and reason. Unfortunately, we are all dependent, to too great a decree, on malicious corporate 'news' monopolies whose journalistic crimes have never been better demonstrated that their crap 'news' about WMDs in Iraq. They are telling lies like this, and trying to brainwash us, on many issues, in the interest of war profiteers and global corporate predators. So it is often difficult to know the facts and to understand what is really going on. But we must try to do so, if we are to recover our own democracy, and not be led down the bloody 'garden path' to more war and more exploitation of others, and our own ruination.

[DissedByBush]

15. Why I hate him has nothing to do with ideology

There are many things he did. One stands out and proves he is a power-hungry demagogue. That was his Enabling Act which he used to make 49 decrees, and his asking for a second in 2007. Any leader who even accepts an enabling act is an enemy of democracy IMHO.

[Peace Patriot]

18. Then I guess you include Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, who also has powers of decree,

granted to him by the legislature? He exercised rule by decree just last year, regarding preservation of part of the Amazon. It is a common practice in Latin America--the legislature granting "rule by decree" powers to the executive, on particular issues, for limited time periods (as with the Chavez decrees)--I don't know why, exactly. Perhaps it is because the legislatures are slow and inefficient, and so they entrust swift action--but limited to specific issues and time-periods--to their presidents, when action is needed?

Venezuela has far, FAR more transparent elections than we do. So those in the legislature, and those in the executive branch as well, are MUCH more representative of the interests of ordinary people than our public officials are. What is wrong, then, with a transparently elected legislature--the National Assembly--granting powers of decree to a transparently elected president, in what is a common government practice in Latin America?

One of the things that Chavez did with powers granted under the Enabling Act was to buy back the Bank of Venezuela, recently. It had been privatized, previously, and the private owners put it on the open market. According to Chavez government officials, they intend to re-sell it. Without the Enabling Act, Chavez might not have been able to act fast enough to prevent this bank from being purchased by some hostile party. Now they can control the sale, in the interests of the people of Venezuela. This is a good example of why Enabling Acts are passed, and what their purpose is--to do something that needs swift action, that is in the interest of the country and its people. Can you name one action that Chavez has performed, under the Enabling Act, that has NOT been in the interest of Venezuela and its people?

"...his asking for a second in 2007." Asking for. Interesting phrase. Not grabbing. Not seizing. Asking the National Assembly--full of transparently elected representatives of the people. Such a "power-hungry demagogue"!

"Any leader who even accepts an enabling act is an enemy of democracy...". You are really reaching here, to construe Chavez as a "power-hungry demagogue." He asks. He accepts. He does not demand. He does not seize. He is working within the legal and political framework of Venezuela, it seems to me. He is a strong politician and leader, and an activist president--true. Is that any different than, say, FDR? --whom the rightwingers also called a "dictator." (Ask your grandparents if they like getting Social Security. Could you support them, if they were not getting it? FDR's effort to "pack the Supreme Court"--though he ultimately failed to do so--was the pressure on the Court that saved Social Security from being declared unconstitutional. Sometimes good presidents have to be strong.)

"One stands out (the Enabling Act) and proves he is a power-hungry demagogue." No, it does not prove this, to me. You mention other things. ("There are many things he did.") What else? I know the whole list, and have investigated the whole list, and know the facts and details of each of these bullshit, rightwing "talking points." So be careful. What is item #2 on your list, that "proves" that Chavez is a "power-hungry demogogue"? I am also quite familiar with Chavez's achievements, so you'd better come up with some good evidence of crime, illegality, ill intention, demagoguery (mere wind-bagism, no substance), bad policy, harm to others, harm to Venezuela, harm to democracy, to convince me that he is a "power-hungry demagogue," rather than simply a strong Leftist politician, who gets things done, who has materially improved millions of lives, and has never harmed anybody.

[Judi Lynn]

19. After reading your correct information, I was reminded of recent use of this power, in Peru,

by President Alan Garcia, the man _Bush backed in the last election, running against the progressive candidate.

Alan Garcia has used this mechanism himself, it has been mentioned almost in passing in our own corporate media, and we didn't hear one single bellow from the right-wingers who feel Democrats must hear their opinions. No, a power of decree in the hands of a Republican-friendly head of state anywhere seems to be just fine with them.

Hugo Chavez had already used this same power two times in earlier years, before, apparently, our corporate media had been prompted to gibber about it relentlessly. Maybe they weren't aware they could get any mileage from it yet.

Alan Garcia used his very recently last year, you'll probably remember he announced it at the same time he announced his plan to BOMB without warning, and without mercy any place he believed to be processing cocaine.

[DissedByBush]

20. I think it would be useless

Somehow it would all be explained away just as his multiple use of the most undemocratic rule by decree. If you think the executive needs such power, by definition you do not think democracy works.

Just imagine what you would have thought had Congress given Bush this power. If you don't think that would have been a very democratic thing then you are only giving Chavez a pass because you like him.

You want more? He wants to abolish term limits. That is a sign of someone who wants to stay in power forever.

Chavez has no problem violently putting down opposition protests. Amnesty International is not pleased.

Three different press freedom watchdog groups say he is clamping down on freedom of the press.

Aside from his bloody coup attempt he has never harmed anybody. He either orders others to do it or has police look the other way while his supporters do it.

[Peace Patriot]

21. The U.S. Congress gave Bush enormous powers--the Patriot Act, emergency war spending--

as well as Bush assuming enormous powers--to torture, to spy, to suspend the Constitution, to write his own laws with 'executive signing statements,' to use the Dept. of Justice for political ends, to set up illegal torture dungeons around the globe, to send kidnap and death squads into foreign countries, and to slaughter a hundred thousand innocent people to get their oil, among other things.

But neither you, nor the other commenter, has mentioned any act of Chavez that was illegal, outside the bounds of his rightful power, or unconstitutional, nor any exercise of power, under Enabling Acts, that went outside the limits placed on him by the National Assembly.

How democratic governments arrange and allot power--and the balance of powers within governments--is a neverending question, and a constant struggle, in the history of democracy. Some countries have Prime Ministers, who, if they become too unpopular, must hold elections. Some have PM's who can serve for life (England)--if they remain popular and are re-elected, and some have presidents who can serve for life, again, if they remain popular and are re-elected (France; the U.S. prior to the mid-1950s, when the Republicans rammed thru a term limit on the president, to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again). Some countries have executives with term limits. Some countries make provision for recall of the president (Venezuela is one). And the power between the executive and the legislature, and the courts, is an endless tug of war. The bottom line is TRANSPARENT elections--verifiable elections, which are not overly influenced by money and entrenched interests. Venezuela is a shining light in respect to elections. So the presumption must be that the result--who achieves public office, as president or in the legislature--is there by legitimate authority of the people, and would tend to act in their interest. But the proof is in the actions by the leader or body of leaders.

What actions has Chavez taken that have NOT been in the interest of Venezuela and its people?

Violently put down protests of the opposition? That is bullshit. I know what you are talking about, and who trained these "brownshirt" thugs to cause trouble. Chavez, and local officials as well, have an obligation--a duty--to keep order in the country, and not to permit violent protests.

Your other charges are equally vague. The "clampdown" on the press is ludicrous, considering the rightwing nuttery that spews forth from the numerous corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies in Venezuela. And, I don't know about you, but rebelling against a rightwing regime that slaughtered some 300 innocent people in the streets, was a sign of courage (which is how most Venezuelans saw it)--however misguided it was, in a youthful moment in Chavez's life. He spent two years in jail for it (and became a hero to the poor in jail), and turned away from that road and went into politics. Venezuela's voters have forgiven him for it. Why haven't you?

George Washington killed some people, too, as I recall. (Chavez, however, did not kill anyone--although several soldiers were killed by others in that early rebellion.)

[DissedByBush]

25. He owns the legislative and judicial

By definition nothing he does will be illegal.

"What actions has Chavez taken that have NOT been in the interest of Venezuela and its people? "

Now you're getting into ideology. I'm talking about him being power-hungry. Mussolini made the trains run on time and was immensely popular in Italy, but that didn't make him a good democratic leader.

It appears you love Chavez' ideology, so you will be able to rationalize anything he does. I know, the TV station he shut down was with the opposition, "right wing conspiracy" you'd probably say. Guess what, in a society with free speech you allow the opposition to speak. He didn't.

Thanks, but I'll believe Amnesty International and the other NGOs who have exposed Chavez' lust for power and his disregard for basic rights. I'll ignore the partisans on either side of the ideological battle.

[EFerrari]

26. What utter cr@p. What you mean is, the majority party is in power.

That's like saying Obama owns the Senate and the House. lol

And Venezuela's Amnesty report is looking somewhat better than ours.

[DissedByBush]

27. Obama doesn't own the Democratic party

Chavez runs his country.

"And Venezuela's Amnesty report is looking somewhat better than ours. "

I thought you liked Chavez too much to compare him to the human rights record of this country after eight years of Bush.

[EFerrari]

28. No double standard there. n/t

[Tejas]

22. Okay, why did he militarize Venezuelan ports?

I mean, since he's not power-hungry and stuff.

[bemildred]

24. It appears to have been some sort of pissing contest between some mayors and

the national government. Naturally, the mayors lost.

[aquart]

10. Yes! Let's get normal!

[Judi Lynn]

12. Chavez 'to restore US ambassador'

Page last updated at 03:32 GMT, Sunday, 19 April 2009 04:32 UK
Chavez 'to restore US ambassador'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he expects to send an ambassador back to Washington soon.

Mr Chavez expelled the US envoy to Caracas in September in "solidarity" with Bolivia. The US reciprocated.

In response, the US state department says it "will now work" toward returning its ambassador to Venezuela.

The announcements came at a Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, where US President Barack Obama received a warm welcome from Latin American leaders.

Last September's diplomatic dispute arose over an alleged US plot against Bolivian President Evo Morales.

Mr Chavez was a fierce critic of the United States under former President George W Bush, accusing Washington of plotting to assassinate him.



(Evo.)
More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006135.stm

[Peace Patriot]

14. "...an ALLEGED US plot against Bolivian President Evo Morales." ?!

Jeez, the BBC has outdone itself--and outdone even the lesser 'journalistic' enterprises of the corpo/fascist rulers--with this "alleged" plot thing. The U.S. embassy, the DEA, USAID (and god knows who else) were funding and organizing fascist secessionists--white separatists--who were trying to split off Bolivia's gas/oil rich eastern provinces into a fascist mini-state in the control of the resources, and who rioted, trashed government and NGO buildings, beat up the indigenous, blew up a gas pipeline and machine-gunned some 30 unarmed peasant farmers, this last September. There was nothing "alleged" about it. There were reports from all over Bolivia--not just from the Morales government--that the DEA and USAID were funding the rightwing separatists. Bolivian peasant farmers refused to work with the DEA for this reason. They threw the DEA out of their region, well before Morales threw the DEA out of the country. U.S. Peace Corps workers also blew the whistle on U.S. embassy anti-Morales activities. Everybody in Bolivia knew what was going on. Why doesn't the BBC? Or rather, why are they black-holing this information with the word "alleged"?

In fact, all of South America knew it, and came to Morales' aid, when he threw the U.S. ambassador out. (Chile's president, Michele Batchelet called an emergency meeting of the newly formed UNASUR--South American Common Market--which produced unanimous backing of Morales, and help in re-establishing peace--and the reason they did this through UNASUR is that the U.S. is not a member of it.)

Furthermore, Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, said that it was a three-country Bushwhack/fascist civil war plot, to get control of the oil in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, and there is plenty of other evidence that he was speaking knowledgeably, including an op-ed in the Washington Post, by none other than the 'retired' Donald Rumsfeld, in which he urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America, in Rumsfeld's 'retirement' quest for "The Smart Way to Defeat Tyrants Like Chavez" (title of his article*).

"Alleged" plot, my ass.

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


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

[Peace Patriot]

13. This is the first corpo/fascist 'news' article that I have seen that has given at least

part of the REASON why Venezuela broke off diplomatic relations with the U.S. this last September:

"Chavez expelled the U.S. envoy to Caracas in September and Washington responded by kicking out Venezuela's ambassador during a dispute over U.S. activities in Bolivia."--Rotters

Of course they don't give the details of even that "dispute" (the U.S./Bushwhacks funding and organizing a white separatist coup attempt in Bolivia, with riots and mass murder), nor do they even hint at what Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, said was three-country Bushwhack/fascist civil war plot (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador) to split off secessionist states to control the oil, nor do they mention on-going assassination and slander/psyops plots against Chavez and other leftist leaders.

But at least they say something. Prior corpo/fascist 'news' article that mention the diplomatic row give the impression that Chavez was somehow irrationally angry at the U.S., and broke off relations for no good reason. He had plenty of reason. The murderous fascist plot in Bolivia was being funded/organized right out of the U.S. embassy (and collapsed after President Morales threw the U.S. ambassador and the DEA out of Bolivia). Ecuador got bombed/raided by the U.S./Colombia, early last year--another diplomatic row instigated by the Bushwhacks (orchestrated out of the U.S. embassy "war room" in Bogota). Following this, Rumsfeld's privatized "Office of Special Plans"* was manufacturing "emails" from the "miracle laptop" that survived ten U.S. "smart bombs" in the bombing/raid on a FARC (leftist guerrilla) temporary hostage release camp inside Ecuador's border, alleging that the presidents of Venezuela and Ecuador are terrorist-lovers.

And on and on. But these things have been so distorted or black-holed in corpo/fascist 'news' reports that, when a Latin American leader reacts, it seems to come out of nowhere. At least, they mention the reason here, however briefly. Combined with the Associate Pukes and their two--drop dead amazing--favorable or at least neutral stories about Chavez/Venezuela over the last week, I'd say there are some new "talking points" coming out of Langley, and possibly...can it be? ...a better--fairer, more just, or at least more realistic--Latin American foreign policy?

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

*(The article that alerted me to Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Latin America:
"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html )

[ohio2007]

16. drama queen wants to set up another episode to "throw out" US diplomats at a time of his choosing

some day when required.

[DissedByBush]

17. It's hard to retain dictatorial power

when you don't have a big bad enemy you're defending your people against. You need to create one if you don't have one. Otherwise the people will start looking at you, and may revolt when they've woken up.

Bush used this theme well to get unprecedented executive powers and violate an unknown number of rights. Fortunately our democracy was strong enough to survive him. I don't think Venezuela has a democracy strong enough to survive Chavez.

[EFerrari]

23. Venezuela has had more clean elections than we have in the last eight years.

Venezuela doesn't have a global spy program and is not protecting torturers. Other than that, you're right.

lol