Hugo Chavez to Pres. Obama: "I want to be your friend.''

[ClarkUSA]

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad -- President Barack Obama and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez shared a friendly handshake at the start of the Fifth Summit of the Americas Friday.

The Venezuelan government called the handshake ''historic'' and hinted that it was the first step toward thawing chilly relations between the two nations.

''Before the start of the inaugural session of the Fifth Summit of the Americas, the president of the United States Barack Obama approached the president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Hugo Chávez and offered him a greeting,'' according to a statement released by the Venezuelan government.

"Both leaders gave their hands in a historic greeting, after several years of tensions with the Bush administration, when the relations between Washington and Caracas had deteriorated.''

The Venezuelan state news agency released a photo of the friendly casual handshake, with Obama with his hand warmly on Chávez' shoulder.

''With this same hand, I greeted Bush eight years ago,'' Chávez said. "I want to be your friend.''

Jackeens has photos for you here. :)

[MadBadger]

1. I mean, you did say that Obama has the same stench as Bush Hugo.

[EFerrari]

3. When he aired the same Bush bullshit, he did. That's right.

I guess that makes Hugo Chavez a bigger person than you are. If our federal government had tried to kill you, I doubt you'd be as forgiving.

[ClarkUSA]

6. When and how did Pres. Obama evince "the same Bush bullshit"? I must've missed it.

[EFerrari]

9. I'm so sorry but he did. He said Chavez exported terrorism, that he

censored the press and that he was a bad influence in the region. All three assertions are demonstrably false.

Most students of Latin America are hoping he was still in the hands of Bush State Dept briefers at the time.

Eta: That was the week before his inaugural.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Do you have credible links to quotes of these alleged statements you claim PEOTUS Obama made?

[EFerrari]

20. They have been posted to this board ad nauseum for YEARS.

ETA: I'm sorry, I don't think I have the patience to do this tonight.

BushCo said he was censoring the media when in reality, his government didn't renew the license of one teevee station that sponsored a coup against him. He waited five years to let the thing expire. Oh, and 70+ % of the media in Venezuela is controlled by the oligarchy.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

He was accused by BushCo and by Colombia of collaborating with a guerrilla group in Colombia -- but only after Uribe of Colombia asked him to negotiate for hostages. In other words, they tried to set him up. Unfortunately for BushCo, there is not a shred of evidence and in fact, Chavez of all the leaders has told that group to put down their arms:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/06/20086150331241733.html

And far from being a hindrance in the region, Chavez has done a lot to help organize Central and South America in the sense of being independent from the IMF and from the World Bank.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-11-20/article/31656?headline=Dispatches-From-The-Edge-Latin-America-the-Crisis-and-Mr.-Monroe

The real reason Chavez is hated by the status quo is because he is leading Latin America to independence from that failed financial establishment. That's worse than messing with their drugs which he has also done. Bush slammed him for kicking the DEA out of Venezuela and just co-incidentally, Venezuela's drug interdictions doubled.

He's a troublemaker. :)

/ack

[Luminous Animal]

22. The interview with Obama was with the Spanish language Univision...

Shortly after Obama took office. Here is a Reuters report:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52L19G20090322

I believe that Chavez's "stench of Bush" comment came after Obama accused Chavez of supporting FARC here:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/05/walter-pacheco.html

[EFerrari]

23. No one seems to remember this but during the election, Chavez was very quiet

except when he was calling out McSame for socializing Wall Street's debt. I think he must have been very insulted by Obama's offhand remarks when he and every progressive leader were so looking forward to an Obama administration. Well, things happen. Maybe they can work it out.

[scarletwoman]

29. I think Chavez knew very well that if he said anything supportive of Obama, it would be spun

as a negative for Obama. Like, "OMG! Socialist commie evil dictator Chavez is BFF with commie socialist secret islamofascist Obama!"

Chavez is savvy enough to know that the best way he could help Obama win the election was to NOT root for him.

sw

[EFerrari]

38. I agree. That's why he was so quick to call McSame

"Comrade" but was absolutely quiet about Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Thanks for the links. I expect Pres. Obama is speaking the truth.

There was no need for Chavez to respond with such over-the-top vitriol via personal attacks, though I'm glad that both Presidents
have met face-to-face and have begun to turn the page.

[ClarkUSA]

30. I'm sure Pres. Obama has good reason to believe these things of Chavez but unlike Bush, he's...

.... ready to engage, which makes him a statesman the like we haven't seen in a President in a long time (see Cuba, also).

[Julius Civitatus]

36. Well said n/t

[EFerrari]

40. He's repeating old talking points. Yesterday he said that Cubans

need to be able to attend church -- another talking point from the cold war that has a lot of us shaking our heads. This trip will be good for him. Maybe he'll be motivated to update his information and be a little more demanding of his briefers.

The joke he made -- that he hoped he would not be blamed for the Bay of Pigs because he was only three months old -- went over very well as an acknowledgment that our Cuba policy is hopelessly outdated. Everyone seemed to appreciate that. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

42. I doubt it. Pres. Obama would only say such things if he felt they were true via intel.

Even though I am not in the least bit religious, I have no problem with his saying Cubans should have freedom to attend church.
As for the rest of your comments, it just goes to illustrate that Pres. Obama is a statesman like no recent president in memory.
He will not allow America to be demonized nor will he act as if this country has not made errors in the past. That's what I voted
for and am pleased it has come to pass.

[EFerrari]

44. Feeling something is true doesn't really change the fact that in reality

there is freedom of religion in Cuba. A quick use of the google can establish that. There are many and diverse faith communities in Cuba. It's insulting to Cuba for him to be making such a statement and if that's the "intel" he's getting, someone needs to be fired because it's wrong.

It's sort of a pattern and all I can think is that there are too many Bush holdovers at the State Department.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Your "reality" seems to be colored by defending all things Cuban and Chavez, so I beg to differ.

And look what I found:

:bluebox: "however, in law and in practice, the Government places restrictions on freedom of religion."

:redbox: Also, there's this recent headline from The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: "Cuba keeps out U.S. religious freedom group".

It appears your idea of "reality" isn't shared by many others, including Pres. Obama. It's amusing to me that you think you
know more than the President Obama and the combined force of U.S. intelligence briefings on the region, though.

[EFerrari]

46. You're quoting the State Department?!

lol

Who in the world do you think funds Cuban dissident groups sponsored by the right wing? Santa?

[ClarkUSA]

48. Yes, and I also referenced The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Now you're changing the subject, making allegations without any evidence.

[EFerrari]

49. Do a search on USAID funds by STATE to subvert governments

all over Latin America. You'll have plenty of reading material. Recently, Bolivia kicked out our ambassador because the idiot was recruiting Peace Corp volunteers and visiting scholars as SPIES. That was widely reported because the potential recruits came forward. Amy has one such report, fyi.

And you can't take that one report from Pew and generalize from it. That's simply unreasonable. You'd have to go and find out the rationale for the denial of visas and see if it's legit or not. Otherwise, you are only looking for material that shores up your position.

Let me give you one more example. There is an opposition group in Havana that receives funds from State. They call themselves the Ladies in White and they claim to represent the families of political prisoners. Their main activity is to dress in white clothes as a protest at church services. Now, why would these women go to all that trouble if the churches in Cuba were empty? How could they mount this protest if the Cuban government is censoring worship services?

It doesn't even make sense on a literal level.

[ClarkUSA]

51. You keep moving the goalposts without a shred of evidence to back you up, which I find telling.

Yet when I find well-sourced evidence to back up my perspective, you dismiss them out of hand yet you don't offer
any of your own. Then you move on to your next point of rhetoric backed up... by no proof at all. :eyes:

Your Obama naysaying cum Cuba/Chavez boosterism hasn't changed my mind from my original determination, which is
I have no doubt that Pres. Obama has good reason to make the statements he does, whether it's about Chavez or religious
freedom in Cuba.

[EFerrari]

52. Not at all. I'm asking you to find out for yourself that what you know

is true or not.

Not to mention, the report about the denied visas says:

"The commission has received reports that there are improvements in some sectors in Cuba," Gaer said. "As with other countries, we seek to ascertain how much and where. If everything is so normal in Cuba, then the Cuban government should welcome a USCIRF visit. Not allowing USCIRF's bipartisan delegation to visit is a very disturbing sign."

You don't know why those visas were not issued. You don't know if they were denied or if it was an admin problem. And you are generalizing from this fact that you don't have. That's probably a mistake.

[ClarkUSA]

53. lol! You're spinning like a top now.

None of your rhetoric strikes me as being more credible than what Pres. Obama has said thus far. I trust he knows what
he's talking about. You... not so much.

[EFerrari]

54. Good luck with that. n/t

[LooseWilly]

109. EFerrari didn't seem to me to be spinning.

I heard what sounds like a very educated about the region series of responses. My own limited experiences in Mexico also leave me feeling dubious about the real understanding of Latin America in the State Department... personally.

I personally find myself persuaded by EFerrari... and hope that Obama quickly learns more so that he can better sift the bullshit from his briefings...

[ClarkUSA]

115. Of course you would.

It's clear that Hillary is doing a shoddy job of briefing President Obama, eh? How disappointing that she's not doing her job well.

[LooseWilly]

122. I'm not suggesting that HRC should personally draft briefings.

I'm assuming that the same regional "experts" are briefing both Hillary and Barack. I'm further assuming that the bureaucracy is full of internal politics... and I suspect that, after the 8 years of Bush, there are many right wing types infesting the supervisory positions of said bureaucracy (Why make a practice of that only at the DOJ?).
I suspect that this is source of a great many recycled talking points making it into briefings and then into speeches.

Points like those of EFerrari serve, in my opinion, to highlight these gaffes... and serve as an incentive to try to weed through the bureaucracy to eliminate the people who try to pick and choose data to serve a pre-conceived conclusion... a type of behavior that I do not believe is reserved solely for the office of the former VP.

Of course, it's also possible that Obama says these things while knowing that they're not true, simply because his audience believes them to be true. I doubt that though, since he doesn't seem to have shied away from trying to illuminate nuance before... so I have no reason to believe that he's intentionally shying away from doing that now.

Hence, I suspect he's getting some bad information.

[ClarkUSA]

129. Do you have any evidence or proof for your assumptions that Pres. Obama made "gaffes"?

I asked the same of EFerrari, but I got nothing but derisive obfuscation and anti-Obama, anti-American rhetoric whose
impassioned defense of all things Cuban/Chavez was of comically dubious credibility. Perhaps you can offer more substance?

[roody]

60. I didn't see President Obama when I was in church in Habana.

[Billy Burnett]

66. I've attended several well attended church services in Cuba.

Some weddings too.

It's pure BS to claim that Cubans can't attend the church of their choice. They can and do.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3836126#3837586

[roody]

68. It is the same song and dance Reagan used about Nicaragua.

[roody]

64. I expect Obama to have more sense than to spew this bs

Cuba has a lovely selection of churches to attend. You can even hear mass in Latin there. You like Baptist? Attend MLK Baptist church. Pentecostal galore---like most of Latin America. Staid United Methodist? No problem if you like a woman minister with a dog lying at her side---the pooch even participates in the procession. Want to go to seminary in Cuba? Try the Baptist one.

[cali]

13. Obama didn't try to kill him

anyway, Obama will handle Chavez in a very adult manner. And Chavez will hopefully do the same in return.

[ClarkUSA]

5. Fortunately, Pres. Obama is not one to hold a personal grudge. He's a true statesman.

Besides, turning the page on BushCo relations with South America requires it.

[Cha]

7. President Obama has an amazing

check on his ego for being such a Leo.

[ClarkUSA]

15. He's his mother's son. She was very much the same way.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Why should he hold a grudge?

Obama is the one who threw the first volley. Not very statesman-like.

[ClarkUSA]

32. For the same reason people do when someone is insulting and obnoxious towards them...

As for throwing "the first volley," I'm sure Pres. Obama had good reason for his comments, which were not personal attacks or insults
like what Chavez did in his responses. But no one will ever praise Chavez as a statesman except his flunkies. What Pres. Obama was
grounded in intel briefings, no doubt, otherwise he never would have said it. As I said before, I'm sure Chavez is no angel in his
dealings.

[brentspeak]

31. He told you this, personally?

He said to you, "I'm not one to hold a grudge"?

[ClarkUSA]

33. Isn't it obvious by now? Pres. Obama's actions since his inaugural speak louder than words.

[phleshdef]

73. Joe Lieberman anyone?

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

8. Chavez is such a douche.

[EFerrari]

10. Right. He's the "douche" that brought democracy back to Venezuela

and that helped Latin America escape from the hands of the IMF. What an @sshole!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

19. Well, I give him credit for his efforts at land reform, but my impression is that

he is just another blow-hard, latin american dictator.

In testimony before the U.S. Senate, the South American Project Director for the Center for Strategic International Studies characterized Venezuela's democracy as "now in intensive care", saying that Chávez's government has weakened the foundations of Venezuela's democracy by systematically hacking away at the institutional checks on Chávez's authority". The testimony also included statements that the Chávez government had crossed the line by "selectively arresting opposition leaders, torturing some members of the opposition (according to human rights organizations) and encouraging, if not directing, its squads of Bolivarian Circles to beat up members of Congress and intimidate voters—all with impunity".<9> Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent and impartial judiciary.<10>

The Berlin-based Transparency International (TNI), in its annual survey Corruption Perceptions Index, ranked Venezuela at 138 out of 163 countries in 2006, with only Haiti being more corrupt in Latin America.<68> In 2008 the situation is similar, with Venezuela ranked 158 out of 180 countries and again only Haiti is more corrupt in Latin America.<69> It should be noted that Venezuela has been one of the most corrupt countries in TNI surveys since they started in 1995, ranking 38th out of 41 that year<70> and performing similarly badly in following years; a slight downward trend in the absolute corruption score (indicating a worsening situation) is discernable.<71> Transparency International, in its annual survey Corruption Perceptions Index, ranked Venezuela as one of only a dozen countries where perceived corruption had "greatly increased" in 2005, resulting in a ranking of 130th out of the 150 countries surveyed,<72>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

This article is under dispute, and it may be slanted. Even if this is the case, there still seems to be a lot questionable things going on there to claim he's some sort of democratic messiah.

[EFerrari]

21. Mass media is very effective. n/t

[LooseWilly]

110. Slanted? You think?

I find it ironic that the mentions in the wiki about the Human Rights Violations seem to be largely in reference to clashes with anti-Chavez demonstrators (which sounds very much like the sorts that W seemed to be behind arranging a coup attempt).
And, of course, when US Presidents face extraordinary crises, their bending of the rules of law are generally seen as ok... but Chavez tries to buck the US, and we're not even supposed to give him the same consideration we give FDR on another thread?...
Really?

[DutchLiberal]

130. They said he was a dictator in 1998. It's been 10 years. When is he going to *show* us he is one?

I mean, organazing referendums on constitutional changes, having them monitored by foreign observers, and then also respecting negavtive outcomes doesn't sound very dictator-like..

[Luminous Animal]

17. That was after Obama accused Chavez

of supporting terrorists. But let's live in a non-reality based world and pretend that Chavez responded unprovoked.

[ClarkUSA]

34. I'm quite sure it's true, given what intel Pres. Obama knows. Chavez responded like a nasty bully.

Defend Chavez if you wish, but I'm not willing to make Chavez a victim just yet. Oh, and in the reality-based world, Pres. Obama
is seen as a cool, calm genial statesman while Chavez is viewed as a loose cannon, to say the least.

[EFerrari]

41. There is not a shred of evidence that Chavez exports terrorism.

That's a talking point that seems to have originated at the Heritage Foundation and was broadcast by disgraced pollster Doug Schoen in his rw nutcase book on Chavez. That's the history of the meme in the reality based world.

Also in the reality based world, it is Obama that is harboring the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, wanted in Venezuela for blowing up an air liner and killing 70 plus people. He is a terrorist who was in part funded by CANF in Miami -- a group of anti-Castro Cubans that are more of a mafia and who gave Obama a nice big endorsement last year. I imagine they also gave him a contribution but haven't checked that.



"Luis Posada Carriles claimed in a 1998 New York Times interview that he received financial backing from Cuban American National Foundation for a 1997 bombing campaign in Cuba.<2> CANF has strongly denied Posada's statement. Posada, however, describes long term relationships with CANF figures in his autobiography. Declassified CIA and FBI documents allege that Posada was one of the "engineers" of the 1976 terrorist bombing of Cubana Airlines flight 455 that killed 73 passengers.<44> The administration of President George W. Bush refused to extradite Posada to Venezuela, where he is wanted for this crime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

So, knowing all of that, you can see how someone with no ties to terror at all and whose people in fact have been victimized by terrorists using the United States as a base would be upset at the terrible suggestion that he is "exporting terror".

That's how this went down in the reality-based world.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Unless you have access to classified CIA and FBI documents, I doubt you'd be privy to such knowledge

But you can bet Pres. Obama does.

[EFerrari]

47. I don't know how to break this to you, but CIA has been responsible

for more damage to democracy in Latin America than any other entity. They're not neutral actors. There are LIBRARIES of books on this topic. And FBI has nothing to do with it.

If Chavez had anything to do with terrorism, that fact would not be the property of American intelligence agencies. And I remind you that said intelligence agencies are under indictment in more than one venue around the world for their war crimes. So, not only are they not neutral but they seem to be a sewer right now.

You don't accuse someone in public of something as serious as supporting terrorism without some factual basis that you must also make public. But he can't because there is none. I can only hope our new president starts getting the briefing he deserves.

I see that if Obama says monkeys fly, you will assume his "intel" is good. You may want to rethink how you know what YOU know.

[ClarkUSA]

55. So what? Yet you referenced declassified CIA documents just now. You can't have it both ways.

You're just full of empty rhetoric and petty ad hominem attacks, aren't you? I can see how Chavez is a hero of yours.

[EFerrari]

56. Have what both ways and what ad hominem?

Whatever. Facts are a big hero of mine and "empty rhetoric" doesn't mean "things I don't know and don't want to know".

[ClarkUSA]

58. Playing dumb is not an effective technique to further your credibility.

Empty anti-American, anti-Obama rhetoric seems to make up a large part of your "reality" on this thread. Fortunately, it's not mine.
One mo' time... none of your rhetoric strikes me as being more credible than what Pres. Obama has said thus far. I trust he knows
what he's talking about. You... not so much.

[EFerrari]

59. I have no idea what you are talking about.

And, I suspect that it's easier for you to go this route than to actually look into the material I pointed out for you. That's fine. Your choice. :)

[ClarkUSA]

61. Your sole purpose on this thread seems to be defending Cuba and Chavez and attacking Pres. Obama.

I guess that's what apologists for dictators do when confronted with the facts. You are not interested in an honest dialogue at all.
Thanks for playing, though.

[EFerrari]

63. When you manage to get a fact in hand, get back to me.

I stand with my research and my articles on this topic and not with your blind trust in something your government said. :)

[ClarkUSA]

65. You are not interested in any facts that conflict with your anti-American/anti-Obama views.

This OP has proved that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Now have a good time promoting the greatness of Cuba and the victimhood of Chavez around here. :tinfoilhat:

[biopowertoday]

69. Would that be antiSouthAmerican? antiNorthAmerican? antiLatinAmerican?

there is no need to call fellew DU members post antiamerican just cause you disagree with him. It is shameful

[ClarkUSA]

74. Spare me your gratuitous poutrage. Isn't there an anti-Obama OP you can recommend and high-five?

[EFerrari]

87. When all you can do is smear, you wind up smelling like sh!t. Good job!

[ClarkUSA]

92. Childish ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of Chavez/Cuba apologists, I see.

[EFerrari]

84. How am I anti-American and anti-Obama?

I'd love for you to defend that ridiculous statement.

I guess you think history is anti-American and facts are anti-Obama. :tinfoilhat:

Thank goodness, Obama doesn't share your view. lol

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

114. A complete read-through of this OP from top to bottom is very revealing of what you're about.

Your blind adoration for all things Chavez is amusingly apparent, as is your pro-Cuba/anti-American rhetoric. As for Pres. Obama,
I am quite sure he shares my view of Chavez and Cuba, as your derisive attacks on him and my reasoned defense of him throughout
this thread proves.

[Zorro]

71. Wrong again, as usual

The obsessive repetition of a falsehood doesn't turn it into the truth. Many -- if not most -- South American problems have been self-inflicted, and not the result of some nefarious US boogeyman. Even Chavez has been exposed as a meddler in both Argentine and Colombian internal politics.

And Obama obviously has much better sources of accurate information on the region than you do.

You're naive if you think the cadres of Cuban medical personnel in Latin America are not actively reporting on local activities to their political overlords.

[EFerrari]

72. "Wrong again, as usual". You know, you're not as good as you think you are.

And the fact that you stalk me all over DU on threads about Latin America is not lost on anyone.

500 years of carnage and the wound is self inflicted? Sure. How ignorant do you believe this community is to entertain that idea for even a moment

Obama himself has said he has a lot to learn about Latin America. And in his better wisdom, he is doing exactly that. What he does best, building relationships. He'll be fine, he will be excellent and this will be a break through decade in the painful history of US - Latin American relations.

How sad for you.

[Zorro]

101. Boo hoo hoo

Since your blatherings appear constantly throughout Latin America threads, it's almost impossible to not end up responding to one of your melodramatic assertions.

Bush tried to kill Chavez, and bump off Morales? Yeah, right.

What's sad is that you apparently can't appreciate my attempts to provide you with some enlightenment.

[ClarkUSA]

75. "The obsessive repetition of a falsehood doesn't turn it into the truth." Thank you.

I'm glad that the Rovian techniques used by those who feel Cuba and Chavez are above reproach haven't been lost on those reading
through this OP.

[EFerrari]

88. Rovian?

LOL!

So, when your world view is threatened by information, you resort to snark and insults. Well done!

[ClarkUSA]

94. That's what Zodiak described, yes. From what I've seen, it's quite an accurate take.

[blueclown]

2. This just in: the reaction from Freeperville.

[EFerrari]

4. The right wing nutcases all over the hemisphere

are freaking out over the possiblity that our new president will have good relations with the majority of Latin America.

[Danger Mouse]

11. That's good to hear. Hugo's a bit of an ass, but it'd be nice for us to get along with him.

[EFerrari]

12. Right. It might be "nice" for us to get along with the most powerful leader

in Latin America. lol

[Danger Mouse]

16. Yes, it would peachy keen.

[Colobo]

27. Lula Da Silva is the most powerful leader in the region, not Chavez.

[EFerrari]

28. No. Lula is the most popular; Chavez can raise more allies.

But since they're good friends, it really doesn't matter. Remember Obama said "I love this guy" about Lula? Lula has been the go between for Obama and Chavez.

[ClarkUSA]

78. Wrong again. Pres. Obama is the most popular leader in the Americas by far (link & quote).

A Latin America-wide survey released Thursday by the CIMA polling group, entitled Ibero-American Barometer 2009, shows that Obama is the most popular leader of the Americas -- by far.

Obama has a 70 percent approval rate in the region, followed by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva with 59 percent, according to the poll of 10,000 people in 22 Latin American and Caribbean countries. By comparison, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez got a 28 percent approval rate in the region, the poll shows.

In reality, Pres. Obama is way more popular than Lula and your hero is about as popular as Bush II.

[EFerrari]

89. We were talking about Latin American leaders but thanks for playing.

And, I've yet to find the actual poll so it's a little premature to sign off on it -- although as you say, you have no trouble believing over knowing.

[ClarkUSA]

96. lol! Were "we"? Nice try. The poll shows Chavez is nowhere as popular as you claim at only 28%.

[jefferson_dem]

24. I agree with the sentiment but would strike the "a bit of" qualifier.

n/t

[zeemike]

18. I think the important point here is

That Obama sought him out to shake his hand...to the South Americans that is a significant thing.

[Canuckistanian]

26. Why not? It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...

Obama's got his cardigan and Chavez wants to play with the trains.

[anonymous171]

37. Chavez has betrayed the left!

How dare he bow to American hegemony! :rofl:

[Honeycombe8]

39. I don't believe Chavez, of course. No history there of objectivity and honesty...

or anything approaching trying to have a friendly relationship with America. Or with our large corporations (remember that Chavez confiscated billions of dollars worth of assets from American companies that had set up to do business in Venezuela; not very friendly, but lucrative for himself.)

Chavez then gives Obama a propoganda book written decades ago (I guess knowing that Obama reads, unlike the former President).

When Obama took the book & shook his hand, O was polite, respectful, and appropriate, as was Chavez. That was not the picture being fed to the public by Fox, who shows some other greeting between the two. I tend to agree that that other pic, the one where O is apparently laughing at a joke or amusing comment by Chavez, doesn't look appropriate, considering how Chavez has harmed our country in recent years. I would prefer that that 2nd greeting not have happened. But the first was appropriate.

The book gift - inappropriate. It would be like O giving Chavez a book about how Venezuela has harmed the U.S. The statements in it might or might not be true, but it's an inappropriate gift to the other country's leader, and does not show a friendly intent.

[ima_sinnic]

50. wow. are you misinformed (nt)

[EFerrari]

57. Have you read that book?

[ClarkUSA]

62. The book "gift" was patronizing. Chavez deliberately did it for the photo-op.

[ima_sinnic]

67. yeah, he has no interest in educating Obama about the situation there in SA

:sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

76. Chavez is a self-aggrandizing dictator who chose a photo-op to highlight his self-serving "gift".

Perhaps Pres. Obama should reciprocate by giving Chavez a history of how Spain and Portugal conquered South America
by genocide of the native population via disease and war and afterwards treated "Indians" there like slaves and indentured
servants to the conquestador class while exploiting the native natural resources for themselves? Boy, that'd be a great
gesture, eh? Venezuelans would be so appreciative of our President ""trying to educate" their leader, I'm sure.

[ima_sinnic]

79. a "dictator"? please educate yourself.

or don't. but don't post things that remove all doubt about how ignorant you are.

[ClarkUSA]

80. To me, anyone who gets rid of term limits and declares himself President For Life is a dictator.

But hey, that's just me being "ignorant" I guess. :shrug:

Maybe to you -- since you're so enlightened :eyes: -- self-appointed Presidente For Life Chavez is a beacon of democracy, but I doubt you'd think so highly of Bush II if he had done the same thing last year.

[ima_sinnic]

81. who "got rid of term limits"? the matter was put up for a vote, and the voters voted no

--gee, that's real "dictatorial." When his term expires, they will vote in someone else. he is hardly "self-appointed." You didn't hear they had free, fair, and democratic elections in Venezuela that were witnessed by observers from around the world?

Here in the U.S., term limits were imposed after FDRoosevelt won the presidency 4 times. It was decided that 2 terms was enough, to prevent anyone from becoming too powerful. However, at some time U.S. voters could vote to do away with term limits. Would the president who was in power at the time be "self-appointed president for life"?

But no matter, continue believing everything you hear on fox "news."

[ClarkUSA]

86. February 16, 2009, Times Online UK: "Hugo Chávez wins referendum over extension of presidency"

President Hugo Chávez won a national referendum in Venezuela today that allows him to stand for re-election far into the future... As Venezuelans turned out in huge numbers to vote on a constitutional amendment that would overturn term limits for elected officials, Mr Chávez hailed the referendum... Under the current constitution, created by Mr Chávez after his election in 1998, the President would have to stand down in 2012, when he reaches the end of his two-term limit.

[EFerrari]

90. So, genius, how does a national referendum voted on transparent election systems

and using international monitors equal "getting rid of terms limits".

Holy cow.

lol

[ClarkUSA]

95. Spinning like a top again? The article makes it clear just "how" despite your many obfuscations.

[ima_sinnic]

103. my bad, I thought that referendum was defeated. but I also ask how

a free, fair election on the matter = "Chavez is a dictator."

I guess anybody can be deemed a dictator if you want him to be. Why you would consider yourself a progressive person and still demonize someone who is working for the interests of The People instead of the rich is beyond me.

[ima_sinnic]

104. oh, and all it does is give him the right to RUN again indefinitely.

The voters can always vote him out if they want.

Yeah, what an evil "dictator."

[ClarkUSA]

106. Because dictators do this crap: "Venezuela ousts EU politician for insulting Chavez" (2/14/09 CNN)

:bluebox: CARACAS, Venezuela (CNN) -- Venezuela on Friday expelled a Spanish member of the European Parliament after he called President Hugo Chavez a dictator and criticized Chavez's handling of a referendum on term limits that the lawmaker had been set to observe."


:redbox: In May 2007, a Venezuelan TV station goes off the air" after Chavez refuses to renew its license. Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by Chavez that forced a television station critical of his government off the air. Radio Caracas Television ceased broadcasting and was replaced with a new state-funded channel that featured monologues by -- you guessed it -- El Presidente Chavez. Chavez had refused to renew RCTV's broadcast license, accusing it of "subversive" activities and promoting capitalism. More here.

These are just two examples out of many. It appears that I am a progressive who's not a hypocrite, unlike some at DU. Imagine if Pres. Obama did either of these things to his critics or Faux News. What would you and others here be saying about him then?

[DutchLiberal]

131. Dictators don't usually allow elections being controlled by foreign observers...

Or free dissenting press.

Or mass demonstrations from the opposition.

So either you are misinformed, or Chavez is a very rare kind of dictator...

[ClarkUSA]

132. You're misinformed. See reply #106 for a fact check on your comments.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8352355&mesg_id=8356301

[DutchLiberal]

133. It doesn't contradict any of the point I made. So your lame attempt at a rebuttal is irrelevant.

By the way, the tv station that didn't got its license renewed, is not the only one in Venezuela, as much as you would like have us believing. In the US apparantly, they allow tv stations that call for revolution and overthrow of the government (= Fox), but in Venezuela they don't put up with that. Especially not since a coup actually happened.

[biopowertoday]

70. My hope is that Obama reads and learns from the History book

that Chavez gave him as a book today.



http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52L19G20090322http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52L19G20090322


........CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an "ignoramus" for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

"He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he's a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality," said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Chavez said Obama's comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.

"When I saw Obama saying what he said, I put the decision back in the drawer; let's wait and see," Chavez said on his weekly television show, adding he had wanted to send a new ambassador to improve relations with the United States after the departure of George W. Bush as president.

In a January interview with Spanish-language U.S. network Univision, Obama said Chavez had hindered progress in Latin America, accusing him of exporting terrorist activities and supporting Colombian guerrillas.

"My, what ignorance; the real obstacle to development in Latin America has been the empire that you today preside over," said Chavez, who is a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy.

In the 20th century the United States supported several armed movements and coups in Latin America. Chavez says Washington had a hand in a short-lived putsch against him in 2002, which was initially welcomed by U.S. officials.

[asdjrocky]

77. Man, is that guy one massive ass-boob or what?

[EFerrari]

82. He's a rock star in Latin America and it's hilarious that people up here

can't handle it.

[jgraz]

83. That's what happens when you have a leader who cares about his people

We should really try that sometime...

[EFerrari]

85. Yeah. Well, it's early days. We may be in trials right now.

Too soon to tell. :)

[ClarkUSA]

99. So you think it's "Too soon to tell" whether Pres. Obama is a leader who cares for his people?

What an interesting thing to say.

[EFerrari]

100. All politicians have to balance their career against their ideals.

Is this somehow news to you? How quaint!

[ClarkUSA]

102. What gobblety-gook. You didn't answer my question.

[ClarkUSA]

98. "We should really try that sometime..."? So you don't think Pres. Obama "cares for his people"?

Hmmm... do I smell the sour grapes of CATTYness?

[jgraz]

108. Of course he cares for "his people" -- Wall Street thieves and war criminals

And that smell you're smelling? That's the inside of Obama's large intestine.

[ClarkUSA]

113. lol! Is that CATTY Red Herring of Bitterness all you've got? It's so easy to refute your nonsense->

You are always Hillaryous, I'll give you that. Now here's an analysis of President Obama from an unbiased news source that refutes your nonsense...

President leading with a sense of urgency and calm

By Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak
Tribune Newspapers

April 19, 2009


WASHINGTON — On the last Friday in March, President Barack Obama summoned leaders of the banking industry to the White House, where they gathered around a mahogany table in the sumptuous State Dining Room. On this day there was not a piece of fruit or can of soda in sight. At each place was a glass of water. No ice. No refills.

The president's message was as hard and crusty as a slab of day-old bread.

He urged the businessmen to view corporate excess through the eyes of Americans who are belt-tightening their way through the recession. Obama mentioned the carpet stains in the Oval Office — to make a frugal contrast with million-dollar executive suites appointed with $8,000 trash cans.

The bankers protested, citing the specialization of their field and the need to pay handsomely to avoid a brain drain. Obama cut them off: "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

Direct, assertive and utterly self-assured, Obama has used his broad popularity, a driving ambition and sweeping agenda to move America in a wholly new direction.

Just shy of 100 days in office, he has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison and a troop withdrawal from Iraq, made it easier for women to sue for job discrimination, eased restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research, extended health care to millions of children, ousted the head of General Motors, reached out to the Muslim world, moved to ease tensions with Cuba, traveled to Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America, and set aside huge tracts of wilderness for federal protection.

More broadly, Obama has seized on the worst economic crisis since the 1930s — exploiting it, critics say — and set out to reshape major aspects of everyday life: the price we pay to see a doctor, the size of our children's classrooms, the fuel we put in our cars.

More here.

[jgraz]

116. Sigh... the ignorance on this board is depressing.

This is why I haven't been posting here, and why I probably won't be posting much in the future. Apparently, you now have to show your Obama credentials at the door before you can can voice dissent.

Well, why don't we apply the same thing to the acolytes? Tell me, little prostrate one: how much did you donate to Obama's campaign? How many hours did you spend canvassing and phone banking? Or are you just one of those "worship from afar" types?

The few left on this board who actually paid attention during the campaign know that I earned every letter of my dissent. They also know what a fool you look like accusing me of supporting Hilary.

And only a fool would read that story of Obama's "tough talk" as anything more than a coach whipping his star players into line -- or worse, yet another dog-and-pony show for credulous reporters and the even more credulous fanboys who like to post excerpts of their stories.


All I've seen from Obama so far is a very smart, talented politician's care for his friends in the banking and intelligence communities. And believe me, I'm ecstatic to finally have a smart, talented politician running the show. It means that if enough pressure is brought to bear, he'll drop those friends as quickly as he dropped his principles on torture and the fourth amendment.

Of course, it's hard to pressure a politician from a kneeling position. You might want to refresh your recollection on how far those "presidential kneepads" got us the last time.

[ClarkUSA]

117. Yes, it is. Your fact-free ad hominem CATTY rhetoric is ample proof of that.

[jgraz]

119. You sound like a 12-year-old. Grow up.

Shit, I get more maturity out of the freepers on Digg.

[ClarkUSA]

120. How so? By offering sourced fact to rebut your BS which you promptly ignored to continue your rant?

[jgraz]

121. Clue stick: quoting an unsourced, pro-Obama puff piece is not a "sourced response"

Neither is your 4th-grade name calling.

Speaking of which, I can't help but notice you never answered my question on what you did during the campaign. Just name one thing that didn't involve you sitting in front of your computer. Just one.

[ClarkUSA]

123. Fact check: The Chicago Tribune is the source. And what do you offer to back up your BS? Nothing.

Nothing, nada, zip, zulch. Gee, I wonder why?

Trying to change the subject by asking questions of me (check the archives for the answers you seek because you're not worth
my time) is a nice try but the fact remains that your CATTY bitterness is amusingly on display for all to see. Enjoy the next eight
years stewing in your Obama-hating bile while the world, this nation and I enjoy his two-term presidency.

[jgraz]

124. Second cluestick: A newspaper cannot be a "source". The "source" is whoever gave them the quote.

And they never name their source, hence: "unsourced". Amazon offers several fine books on the basics of journalism. You may wish to avail yourself of their services.



And, btw, thank you for answering my question so convincingly. I hope your fingers didn't get tired from all that "campaigning" you did. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

125. lol! Splitting hairs when you can't offer up a shred of evidence to back up your CATTY remarks?

Now, where's your sourced proof (quotes and links from credible news agencies only) that President Obama 'only cares for "his people" -- Wall Street thieves and war criminals' ?

Your seemingly endless supply of red herrings is only more evidence of how intellectually dishonest and truly bitter you are regarding
President Obama.

[jgraz]

126. Sigh. Skinner really needs to institute some minimal age limits on posting.

Or perhaps just a small intelligence test.

[ClarkUSA]

128. Why'd you say Pres. Obama 'only cares for "his people" -- Wall Street thieves and war criminals'?

Do you have any source or evidence for this venal :puke:, BITTER :mad:, CATTY :silly: attack on our highly popular Democratic President?

[ecstatic]

127. So what does that make Chavez

if he's rushing to kiss President Obama's ass? :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

97. He's a one-man freakshow that sells papers. His recently polled popularity is only 28% (link-->)

Reply #78 spells it out with a quoted source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8352355&mesg_id=8355285

The Venezuelan government was the first to release pictures of him shaking Pres. Obama's hand. Guess Chavez
needs some of Barack's 70% popularity to start rubbing off on him, eh?

[ima_sinnic]

105. that is his rating throughout the region, not in his own country

-- no doubt low because of the constant unnecessary demonization by people like you who feel the need to run screaming from "socialists."

[ClarkUSA]

107. Considering Chavez goes to great lengths to censor/silence his opposition, I don't doubt you.

[ima_sinnic]

111. what "great lengths" atre those? still falling for the propaganda?

[ClarkUSA]

112. I've answered you before. Reread Reply #106 (w/links to credible sourcing and quotes).

Connect the dots, if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, which is doubtful. I'm not the one "falling for propaganda" but you sure
seem to be a sucker for Chavez blowhard populist rhetoric to the extent that you excuse/ignore/rationalize his dictatorial suppression
of his opposition which you would no doubt condemn if he were an American or European head of state. Take off your kneepads.

[wyldwolf]

118. Obama let me in I wanna be your friend I want to guard your dreams and visions...

Just wrap your legs round these velvet rims
And strap your hands across my engines
Together we could break this trap
Well run till we drop, baby well never go back
Will you walk with me out on the wire
`cause baby Im just a scared and lonely rider
But I gotta find out how it feels
I want to know if love is wild... I want to know if love is real