Chavez calls Bush 'the devil' during UN speech

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20060921_UNUselessNations.php#9b4115b8f2a9ba074f6dce39285

I'd just like to say I'm appalled by the attitude of both the administration ("we're not going to dignify those remarks with..." -- remember that anything but a logical refutation of a statement is just BS -- cliches like this and other evasive tactics do not address the issue) and especially of allegedly impartial media figures, who villify Chavez without examing all his remarks.

It may have been disrespectful of Chavez, in the ordinary, objective sense, to use such hyperbole in metaphor, but he also made good sense in other comments by observing that dubyer is an ex-alcoholic, has a lot of (psychological) complexes, and is very dangerous because he has a lot power. The media had an easy time dismissing all his statements because of the "devil" remark.

CNN did send one reporter to a poor neighborhood in Venezuela to ask if the people there agree with Chavez about the "devil" remark, and in fact, they did. It was also hinted that loads of other world leaders wish they could express a similar opinion so freely, but are simply scared silly of the political ramifications.

I think it makes sense for Chavez to speak up about the US-backed coup attempts in Venezuela, and to keep grabbing the spotlight because he's probably safer that way! Now Musharref is speaking up about US threats against Pakistan. I wonder if he was emboldened as much by Chavez as by dubyer's admission that he'd invade Pakistani territory if he thought he could find Bin Laden there (exhibiting enormous disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations, by the way -- and speaking of disrespect, how about dubyer pulling the "I'm not talking to you" stunt with Ahmadinejad, as if he were a kid in a schoolyard instead of a head of state).

Invariably, the media go from Chavez to Ahmadinejad, trying to paint him with the same "crazy" brush, and putting words in his mouth, a trick that Chavez is probably immune to thanks to 20+ million native-Spanish speakers in the US and probably at least as many more who understand Spanish. That's how I see it, anyway.
 
AdPop said:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20060921_UNUselessNations.php#9b4115b8f2a9ba074f6dce39285

I'd just like to say I'm appalled by the attitude of both the administration ("we're not going to dignify those remarks with..." -- remember that anything but a logical refutation of a statement is just BS -- cliches like this and other evasive tactics do not address the issue) and especially of allegedly impartial media figures, who villify Chavez without examing all his remarks.

It may have been disrespectful of Chavez, in the ordinary, objective sense, to use such hyperbole in metaphor, but he also made good sense in other comments by observing that dubyer is an ex-alcoholic, has a lot of (psychological) complexes, and is very dangerous because he has a lot power. The media had an easy time dismissing all his statements because of the "devil" remark.

CNN did send one reporter to a poor neighborhood in Venezuela to ask if the people there agree with Chavez about the "devil" remark, and in fact, they did. It was also hinted that loads of other world leaders wish they could express a similar opinion so freely, but are simply scared silly of the political ramifications.

I think it makes sense for Chavez to speak up about the US-backed coup attempts in Venezuela, and to keep grabbing the spotlight because he's probably safer that way! Now Musharref is speaking up about US threats against Pakistan. I wonder if he was emboldened as much by Chavez as by dubyer's admission that he'd invade Pakistani territory if he thought he could find Bin Laden there (exhibiting enormous disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations, by the way -- and speaking of disrespect, how about dubyer pulling the "I'm not talking to you" stunt with Ahmadinejad, as if he were a kid in a schoolyard instead of a head of state).

Invariably, the media go from Chavez to Ahmadinejad, trying to paint him with the same "crazy" brush, and putting words in his mouth, a trick that Chavez is probably immune to thanks to 20+ million native-Spanish speakers in the US and probably at least as many more who understand Spanish. That's how I see it, anyway.
While I agree with AdPop, I think Chavez's mistake as well as Azer( Iran ) is to focus to much on Bush, when the real problem is the System and culture that surrounds our leaders. Without repeating the 'Ponerological' analysis-this is where the essence of the issue really is.

Maybe we can get Chavez to check out SOTT. I personally don't think Chomsky is the person the left make him out to be, and he can be considered to be a Red-Herring.
 
chavez is no angel..

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/venezu9015.htm
 
pescado said:
chavez is no angel..

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/venezu9015.htm
Of course not, can you name a person in a postion of power who is?, even one? Hell, I'm not an angel either, and I'm a pretty 'straight shooter'.

The macro is that 'it's' our sick culture of Western Civ. that is the backround to the inhumane mess we find ourselves in. While it's fun and intellectually stimulating to study and try and figure out what's going on nothing is going to change until the whole things falls apart. And then what?...I have no idea.

And I'm an optimist!
 
pescado said:
i thought the speech was great.. i provided the link for perspective, thats all
Gotcha, no worries.

Hey anyone know a Cent-a-Millionaire, or Billionaire who would like to fund a MSM News network so
we could watch somebody other than O'Reilly, Chris Mathews, Tucker, Anderson Cooper etc? I mean all
these guys/gals and their editors are.... I know it must be the fluoride in the water.<grin>

Who knows...<grin>
 
More on Chavez from an interesting POV.
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7301#7301
-Here is the link, you must scroll down the thread to find what I've pasted below.
"Break for News" and Fintun Dunne are very interesting. Curious if anyone else
reads this site and what their impressions are?


Joshua said:
Chavez: Another CIA Fake?

Considering that Venezuela is now reported to have oil reserves five times
those of Saudi Arabia, it is certainly worth investigating if it is possible that
the U.S. has a long-term plan to secure its interests in the country.

Furthermore the South American revolt against U.S. imperial suppression
of the region has bee gathering pace in the last ten years. Perhaps the
U.S. saw the writing on the wall a long time ago, and figured they should
construct a fallback position: conceding a little to the feisty peasants
-- for fear of loosing the whole game.

So, for both reasons, maybe they engineered their own 'populist leader'
into place to help at least contain the revolution.

But how to find evidence of such a deception. One might well suspect
that Chavez is a stooge, but finding hard evidence seems impossible.

That's where knowing who is and isn't a CIA Fake comes in very useful!

Here's a summary on Wikipedia of the allegations of U.S. involvement in
the infamous failed 'coup' against Chavez --the coup bid that established
his populist credentials in Venezuela, and around the world.

A very, very, very, very, very interesting name crops up:

Quote:
2002: Coup and strike/lockout

Controversy regarding US intervention raged afterwards. The Observer reports Otto Reich told Latin American diplomats "the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democratic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'" and that "the US would support the Carmona government."[37]After Ch
 
The above quoted article does not show the author's comments in differing font
from the quoted material in said article; neither does it show the pictures the author
used to suppliment his POV. Use the link to see how he layed out the whole thing if
you get confused as to 'who' is saying what.

I don't know why the forum's structure does not allow for exact pasting, which is
what was pasted. Hope this makes sense.

The guy has a unique POV.
 
I thought it was very strange that Hugo Chavez would be plugging a book by the notorious left-gatekeeper Noam Chomsky. I find it hard to believe a man of Chavez's stature and political saavy would not have researched the author and discovered that Chomsky is probably COINTELPRO and very much alive. He thought Chomsky was dead! Chavez obviously made a slip-up here and maybe didn't even read the book himself. Many people are taken in by Chavez's charisma and oratory talents. I am a little suspicious of who may be pulling his strings.

We must consider the possibility that his UN speech was just a charade and that he is a bought asset along the lines of Osama bin Laden. When push comes to shove, Bush now has an excuse to invade Venezuela. Many people in this country would support such an invasion. Just consider Nancy Pelosi's comments and the call by many politicians to remove or change CITGO signs.

I recommend you read the following article by Daniel L. Abrahamson (it's long and very revealing): Noam Chomsky - Controlled Asset Of The New World Order-
http://warfolly.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1159019179
 
we shouldn't give too much credit to Presidents and Prime ministers. They are, by definition, front men and possess limited understanding of who really controls things. Notice that as a general rule, it has been "lesser" members of governments and other such "civil servants" and intelligence agents who have made statements that hinted at a "secret cabal" behind government that controls the world. For example CIA man Victor Marchetti who said, "there exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult." Chavez should, in my opinion, be seen as a newbie to deeper conspiracy theories and all the nefarious doubel-dealing ways of Cointelpro.

As far as Chavez being "no angel", I see nothing wrong with the prosecutions in Venezuela that are being decried by HRW. Context is all important in this case. To claim that Chavez is not respecting democratic ideals is laughable when you realise that the "democratic ideals" that he is not respecting are American "democratic" ideals, the ideals under which the Bush government stole two elections and invaded and is illegally occupying two sovereign countries.

Any anti-Chavez "democratic" groups with any clout in Venezuela are very likely being financed by Washington and, if they had their way, would restore Venezuela to the "oiligarchs", the elite 20% that ran the country pre-Chavez and squandered Venezuela's wealth to the detriment of the remaining 80%.

Let's be clear here people, there are only two options open to Venezuela: The Chavez way or the American way.

Which would you choose?

Joe
 
Listening to Chavez speak he seems too good to be true, much like Galloway, i.e. he reeks of controlled opposition.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.
This part of his recent speech to the worried me as its calling for more power to be given to the UN as an entity in its own right.
 
I think "Chavez as COINTELPRO" is barking up the wrong tree. His actions as a true leftist revolutionary seem to speak louder than words: subsidizing heating oil to the poor in the US and London, his aid to South and Central American countries, denouncing the Mexican presidential election, direct aid to the victims of Katrina, as well as the reforms he's instituted in Venezuela, would seem to be unnecessary and in fact counterproductive to a COINTELPRO operation. It seems to be giving too much ammunition to what the Empire fears most: true democratic/humanitarian reform.
Although anything is possible, I really don't think these actions reflect A COINTELPRO operation.
 
Redrock12 said:
I think "Chavez as COINTELPRO" is barking up the wrong tree. His actions as a true leftist revolutionary seem to speak louder than words: subsidizing heating oil to the poor in the US and London, and direct aid to the victims of Katrina, as well as the reforms he's instituted in Venezuela would seem to be unnecessary and in fact counterproductive to a COINTELPRO operation.
As well, by being so blatantly open on the international scene about his opposition to the Empire, and his humanitarianism to the average American,
Going in the wrong direction is always good cointelpro, since the 'capture' of Saddam, there's been no-one to fill the 'bogeyman' shoes. I have to admit, he seems to shouting: 'look at me' - distraction, he might not be but don't dismiss it totally out of hand. It might be still too soon to work out which side he is on.
 
pescado said:
chavez is no angel..

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/venezu9015.htm
The last link has this quote:

Washington has repeatedly expressed concern with the situation in Venezuela. Yet the Bush administration's ability to advocate democracy there was hurt in 2002 when it chose to blame Chavez for his own ouster rather than unequivocally condemning the coup.
So there we have it - the writer (useful idiot or disinfo artist) actually thinks that the Bush administration is looking out for Venezuela's best interest. Sheesh.

By their fruits you shall know them. Chavez looks pretty good to me, so far.

I can still smell the sulfur he talked about way over here and I'm up wind!
 
Wouldn't nine years in power (I think) and surviving a probably-CIA-instigated coup also be more than the Empire can tolerate, or would risk?
I think the Empire has bitten off more than it can chew, or swallow. They didn't count on Chavez having the kind of charisma or courage he seems to have. Nor, in their greed and naivete, did they predict the response and political fallout at the international level.
Also, let's not forget George Galloway and Clare Short in the UK
Heck folks, The Emporer really is naked! It's just taken someone like Chavez to open our eyes to that reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom