Rumsfeld likens Chavez and Evo Morales to Hitler - expels diplomat in tit for tat

February 3, 2006 12:00 PM

Rumsfeld likens Chavez to Hitler - expels diplomat in tit for tat
meanwhile the American Family Association calls for a boycott of Venezuelan owned Citgo (obviously encouraging more support for gulf arab regimes). The Venezuelan grandmother I recently spent a Sunday with was very happy with Chavez - and proud of him despite his faults and corruption in the country. What's with Rummy and friends?
posted by specialk420 (123 comments total)

So, according to Godwin's law, this means that the current administration contains nothing more of value?
posted by hattifattener at 12:03 PM on February 3, 2006

So, according to Godwin's law, this means that the current administration contains nothing more of value?

is this instance of goodwins law the chicken or the egg?
posted by specialk420 at 12:04 PM on February 3, 2006

I'm calling for everyone to buy all their gasoline at Citgo.
And purchase of those cool Che Gueverra t-shirts.

What's the AFA doing involved in foreign politics? This has something to do with "raising a family right"? Isn't it time they registered as a political entity?

Rumsfeld is much more a fascist than Chavez. At least Chavez cares about the poor of his country.
posted by nofundy at 12:05 PM on February 3, 2006

I am now driving out of my way to buy gas at Citgo.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:07 PM on February 3, 2006

Make no mistake: Chavez is a dangerous man. He's a threat to open democracy and the free press in Venezuela. I also suspect that his socialism is merely a populist veneer. This guy is an old-school South American military strongman at heart.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:07 PM on February 3, 2006

“[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world...”

- Hugo Chavez
posted by JekPorkins at 12:08 PM on February 3, 2006

(As for the U.S. administrations opposition to Chavez: even a broken clock is right twice a day....)
posted by mr_roboto at 12:09 PM on February 3, 2006

Well, he is an ex-soldier who lead a failed coup, like Hitler. And whenever a newpaper says anything bad about him he claims that they're in the pay of his enemies. And there's the fact that he's organized civilian paramilitary groups that have been known to beat up the opposition. And he's friends with Castro, who has never allowed either free elections or a free press. The anti-semitism charges he's faced are pretty much false, though. Is he a dictator or a liberator? Too early to say, IMHO. Time will tell. It always does.
posted by unreason at 12:09 PM on February 3, 2006

I was just saying last night that Chavez is kind of what Hitler would have been, if instead of massacring Jews, he'd dedicated his dictatorial powers to genuinely helping out the poor and needy.

Chavez strikes me as a true benevolent dictator--which marks him down as one of the most ambivalent villains I've ever seen, because while he's benevolent, he's also a dictator....

I don't know what to make of him, but whatever he is, I think he's the head of state I hate least. At least his dictatorship is benevolent. Rummy can hardly say the same....
posted by jefgodesky at 12:11 PM on February 3, 2006

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power"

Oh the irony.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:11 PM on February 3, 2006

One important point to note is that in many cases Chavez' true motives are unknown. For example, he frequently criticizes the US. This is not particularly outrageous; the US has a deplorable history when it comes to South American politics. It is possible that he is simply something of an activist. However, his tactics can also make good Orwellian propaganda, that is, when something's gone wrong, it's not his fault, it's Goldstein/the American spies who are to blame. As I said before, eventually he'll reveal himself one way or the other by the things he will do, for good or for ill.
posted by unreason at 12:16 PM on February 3, 2006

so the AFA wants their followers to spend moola saudi oil? WTF?
posted by specialk420 at 12:17 PM on February 3, 2006

it's Goldstein/the American spies who are to blame

To make matters even more complicated, half the time, it is the American spies who are to blame....

Which is to say, I agree entirely with your ambivalence about all this.
posted by jefgodesky at 12:18 PM on February 3, 2006

From the AFA article: "It doesn't make sense to purchase gasoline from a country that wants to bring down the U.S. government..."

So, in other words, it doesn't make sense to purchase gasoline, period?
posted by caution live frogs at 12:19 PM on February 3, 2006

jefgodesky writes "At least his dictatorship is benevolent."

I am writing to express Human Rights Watch’s deep concern about credible reports we have received that National Guard and police officers beat and tortured people who were detained during the recent protests in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities. Such cases were not unusual or exceptional. The abuses allegedly committed were widespread and appeared to enjoy official approval at some level of command in the forces responsible for them.

Human Rights Watch's Venezuela page.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:19 PM on February 3, 2006

The secretary acknowledged that "we've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome."

Heaven forbid they appeal to masses of people!
posted by billysumday at 12:20 PM on February 3, 2006

To make matters even more complicated, half the time, it is the American spies who are to blame....

Which is to say, I agree entirely with your ambivalence about all this.
posted by jefgodesky at 3:18 PM EST on February 3 [!]

Yeah, it's a tricky situation. On the one hand, the US has done some ugly stuff. On the other, that doesn't make Chavez trustworthy, and I'm not certain that he's the T-shirt Che that so many want to believe him to be.
posted by unreason at 12:21 PM on February 3, 2006

Yes, I'm aware of the human rights violations ... which is what makes him so ambivalent. He's dealing with corporate interests based in the U.S. and Europe that ran his country into the ground, and have done more than their share of torture and assassination. He's responding in kind. Given that I have no tolerance for Bush's excuse of "war on terror," I can hardly say that Chavez is a "good guy." But I also don't think Bush is the only villain in the War on Terror ... and the sad fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, Chavez is the bloody dictator who's helping the poor, and we're the bloody dictators who are screwing them over.

Like I said ... very, very ambivalent.
posted by jefgodesky at 12:23 PM on February 3, 2006

Our democracy bad. Your democracy good. Got it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:23 PM on February 3, 2006

Rumsfield:

"We saw dictatorships there. And then we saw most of those countries, with the exception of Cuba, for the most part move towards democracies...


Replace "saw" with "installed" and it reads a bit clearer.
posted by iamck at 12:23 PM on February 3, 2006

Chavez has:

- Abolished the Venezuelan Senate
- Gave himself the power to dismiss judges for any reason
- Increased the term of the presidency to 6 years from 5
- Passed an "enabling act" which allowed him to rule by decree for 1 year (during which he passed 49 decrees).
- Replaced the upper levels of the military with Generals loyal to him.
- Reduced the votes required in the national assembly from a 2/3 majority to a simple majority, facilitating his legislative agenda.
- Expanded the supreme court from 20 to 32 justices, filling it with justices loyal to him
- Created a paramilitary "urban reserve army" loyal to him personally that consists of 100,000 people, to be expanded to 2,000,000.
- Took direct control of the National Electoral Council and effective control over the media.
- Enacted legislation making it illegal to "disrespect" any member of government.
- Accumulated political prisoners and physically intimidated and coerced opposition citizens and political parties.

Chávez thus controls the legislature, the Supreme Court, two armed forces, the only important source of state revenue, and the institution that monitors electoral rules. As if that weren’t enough, a new media law allows the state to supervise media content, and a revised criminal code permits the state to imprison any citizen for showing “disrespect” toward government officials. By compiling and posting on the Internet lists of voters and their political tendencies—including whether they signed a petition for a recall referendum in 2004—Venezuela has achieved reverse accountability. The state is watching and punishing citizens for political actions it disapproves of rather than the other way around. If democracy requires checks on the power of incumbents, Venezuela doesn’t come close.

Comparisons with Hitler? Ludicrous in terms of outcome, not so ludicrous in terms of the slow rise to power, from the failed coup in 1992 to the legal consolidation of all power in the office of the President. I suppose people can decide for themselves whether or not he's actually done anything worth *actually* ripping up their constitution and giving himself ultimate and semi-permanent legislative, judicial, executive and military power. I say he hasn't, and he won't, and Venezuela will suffer for it.
posted by loquax at 12:25 PM on February 3, 2006

On the other hand Chavez was quite helpful when CITGO decided to deliver a whole mess of discounted #2 heating oil a couple of months ago. (Not that I'll ever see any of it) seemed a nice of enough guy at the time...
posted by Gungho at 12:25 PM on February 3, 2006

Hating the Bush administration should not mean that anyone they declare as evil must automatically be considered good. Ask anyone in Venezuaela who has spoken out publically against Chavez. (hint: they're dead.)
posted by rocket88 at 12:25 PM on February 3, 2006

We got one beef and one beef alone with Chavez: He's got oil, he's got massive refining capacity, and he's telling the U.S. to go pound sand.

Can't have that.
posted by kgasmart at 12:29 PM on February 3, 2006

Confessions of an Economic Hitman

In the time since that book has been published (in response to Iraq), add Venenzuela and Louisiana to the list.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:30 PM on February 3, 2006

The fact that Chavez is dangerous doesn't mean that the policies he opposes are not dangerous. He's a reactionary leader and he was elected with popular support because of the inequities that exist in the country. He's not some viscious tyrant that seized power against the will of the country and it's important that his election is placed in the correct social context.
posted by iamck at 12:31 PM on February 3, 2006

This guy is an old-school South American military strongman at heart No way. The old South American military strongmen were all OUR strongmen. Pinochet, The Argentine Military regime, Somoza etc. etc.

Democracy is a great theory, unless the outcome bothers Rummy...
posted by punkbitch at 12:31 PM on February 3, 2006

Also: If Rumsfield and other knee jerk anti-Chavez(ites?) would like to be consistent in the Hitler comparisons, please look into some of our allies in the Middle East.
posted by iamck at 12:33 PM on February 3, 2006

We got one beef and one beef alone with Chavez: He's got oil, he's got massive refining capacity, and he's telling the U.S. to go pound sand.

Dios will be arguing with you 3 years from now that bringing freedom to the Venezualans is worth every penny.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:33 PM on February 3, 2006

(hint: they're dead.)

Really? Do you have a source, or is that dead too?
posted by iamck at 12:34 PM on February 3, 2006

I lived in Venezuela in the eighties, and I went back last November for a visit. Freaked me the shit out. Large posters of Dear Leader all over the place. There was an election a few weeks away, and I rarely saw campaign posters for opposition parties. Most of the campaign posters I did see had whatever candidate posing with Chavez.

The thing that most troubled me is that every time I went with my friends to the grocery store, they had to provide their National ID card number that was recorded with each purchase. They told me this was standard procedure, the government knows how much you are spending and what you are buying. This skeeved me out.

Yes, I realize that if the US government wanted to know what I was buying on Amazon.com, they probably could get that information easily enough, especially with this Administration. But having your ID number recorded for every itemized purchase strikes me as chilling and authoritarian.

I'm not agreeing with Rumsfeld by any means; I think that Chavez has a lot of company in the history of South American autocrats who pay lip service to helping the poor while helping themselves to a little something on the side. Yes, previous governments were terrible. I'm not convinced that history will be any much kinder to Chavez than it will be to his predecessors.
posted by ambrosia at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2006

loquax: I agree that the list you've presented looks pretty awful, but so does lying to invade a foreign country, domestic surveilance, torture and so on.

Whatever happens in the upcoming Venezuelan elections has to be respected.
posted by punkbitch at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2006

Ask anyone in Venezuaela who has spoken out publically against Chavez. (hint: they're dead.)

They're also, overwhelmingly, the monied elite. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it much more ambiguous than a simple, clear-cut "he suppresses all opposition" when you understand that his opposition, almost to the very last man, is composed of those corporate interests that have made life in Venezuela a living hell for decades upon decades.

That doesn't make him good by any stretch of the imagination, but he's not as evil as most Americans think, either. The whole situation is much more complicated than such simple, black-and-white moral judgments.
posted by jefgodesky at 12:37 PM on February 3, 2006

Sigh. I think that some people here are making the same mistake that America made during the cold war. America assumed that if you were against the Russians, you must be good. Under this doctrine the US supported numerous right-wing dictatorships. Now some people are doing the same thing. They're assuming that the fact that Chavez is anti-Bush makes him good. It's not any more true now than it was then. Maybe Chavez is the hero you want him to be, I don't know. But the fact that he's an enemy of Bush doesn't automatically make him that hero. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
posted by unreason at 12:38 PM on February 3, 2006

I can't believe no one has posted the CITGO Store Locator yet.
posted by JeffK at 12:43 PM on February 3, 2006

What I wonder is whether the "socialist" Chavez is confiscating more money from his people than Bush is confiscating from me through backdoor taxes.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:44 PM on February 3, 2006

They're also, overwhelmingly, the monied elite.
And killing rich people is acceptable?
posted by rocket88 at 12:45 PM on February 3, 2006

hells yeah! hells yeah! uh, duh!
posted by punkbitch at 12:47 PM on February 3, 2006

I distrust fat socialists.
posted by tweak at 12:48 PM on February 3, 2006

wait for it ... somebody's gonna take me to task for sarcasm ... wait for it ...
posted by punkbitch at 12:48 PM on February 3, 2006

They're also, overwhelmingly, the monied elite. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it much more ambiguous than a simple, clear-cut "he suppresses all opposition" when you understand that his opposition, almost to the very last man, is composed of those corporate interests that have made life in Venezuela a living hell for decades upon decades.

This is exactly my thought when I hear such strong criticism of him abroad. I have a hard time believing that the largely European-descended landed classes of Venezuela would do any better.
posted by vkxmai at 12:48 PM on February 3, 2006

And killing rich people is acceptable?

Consider the very next thing I typed was, "That doesn't make it right," no, that doesn't make it right. But as I then went on to say:

but it does make it much more ambiguous than a simple, clear-cut "he suppresses all opposition" when you understand that his opposition, almost to the very last man, is composed of those corporate interests that have made life in Venezuela a living hell for decades upon decades.

The only thing I'll see about him for sure is that he bears watching. I have no idea if he's the socialist messiah, or the un-American antichrist. My guess would be, something in between, but as unreason said, time will tell.

Also: my previous FPP on Chavez.
posted by jefgodesky at 12:51 PM on February 3, 2006

Las Tres Chiflados!
posted by tweak at 12:52 PM on February 3, 2006

It's sort of like the Israelis versus the Palestinians... they're both awful. It's not good guy/bad guy, it's just two bad guys.

It's pretty obvious that BushCo contains many very bad people.... but Chavez is no angel either.

However, and this is worth pointing out, he's no threat to us... and I don't think the US would be dumb enough to invade there. This is just a war of rhetoric, and that's all it's going to be, at least officially.

I'd be surprised, though, if we WEREN'T trying to destabilize his government covertly. Very, very surprised.
posted by Malor at 12:53 PM on February 3, 2006

they're both awful. It's not good guy/bad guy, it's just two bad guys.

Beyond the rhetoric back and forth, what does the US have to do with Venezuela? Why must Chavez's actions be judged relative to Bush's?
posted by loquax at 12:56 PM on February 3, 2006

I guess I just don't understand how some people can (rightfully) find fault with America's recent erosion of free speech ("Free Speech Zones") and at the same time defend or ignore Chavez's far more brutal suppression of rights in his country.
Doing it in the name of socialism doesn't make it right.
posted by rocket88 at 12:56 PM on February 3, 2006

Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler, Mush-room Mush-room, Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler A Snake! It’s a Snake! Ooh, it’s a Snaaake! It’sa Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler ....

Seriously, I’m not thrilled with Chavez. But everyone is Hitler now.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:02 PM on February 3, 2006

rocket88 writes "I guess I just don't understand how some people can (rightfully) find fault with America's recent erosion of free speech ('Free Speech Zones') and at the same time defend or ignore Chavez's far more brutal suppression of rights in his country."

Is anyone doing that? Not being snarky, but I haven't heard anyone sing his praises in any but the most qualified ways.
posted by brundlefly at 1:03 PM on February 3, 2006

to me the relationship has more to do with the fact that I'm an american whose government is once again involved in "nation building" -- and that the original post was about Rumsfeld's condemnation of Chavez. The "tit for tat" diplomatic roe demands a sort of comparison.
posted by punkbitch at 1:05 PM on February 3, 2006

but I haven't heard anyone sing his praises in any but the most qualified ways.

Yeah, but there's a lot of people in this thread who seem to think that just because bad people (the White House) say he's bad, he must not be so bad, end of story.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:07 PM on February 3, 2006

Mao was also hoisted to power on the backs of peasants.

A billion peasants still remain.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:07 PM on February 3, 2006

"At least his dictatorship is benevolent."

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.

Also, as unreason said, it's a mistake to think the enemy of my enemy must be a Good Guy, or even halfway decent.
posted by languagehat at 1:07 PM on February 3, 2006

Hitler, Hitler
Bo-Bitler
Bo-nanna fanna fo-Fitler
Fi mi mo Mitler
Hitler!
posted by kirkaracha at 1:09 PM on February 3, 2006

Chavez is not nice. In fact, he's been really bad for his people. But he's definitely no Adolph. He's just updated tyranny for modern times.
posted by js003 at 1:10 PM on February 3, 2006

kirkaracha wins the thread.
posted by unreason at 1:10 PM on February 3, 2006

a billion peasants still remain is kind of a weird value judgement of "peasantry," no? Better to have a billion super-industrialized residents of Oz or something?
posted by punkbitch at 1:11 PM on February 3, 2006

"He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power"

*speechless*
posted by youarenothere at 1:16 PM on February 3, 2006

The lollypop guild was like the gestapo.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:17 PM on February 3, 2006

Smedleyman wins the thread.
posted by punkbitch at 1:18 PM on February 3, 2006

punkbitch writes "a billion peasants still remain is kind of a weird value judgement of 'peasantry,' no?"

Peasantry sucks. Peasants live hand-to-mouth and they starve when their crops fail. They have no economic or social opportunities: they have no access to education, they can't accumulate wealth to improve their situation or to pass on to their children, they are tied to the land. I wouldn't want to be a peasant; you wouldn't want to be a peasant. Every person lifted out of peasantry represents a net reduction in human suffering.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:18 PM on February 3, 2006

What about the American agricultural way of life? Dude, the peasants just need farm subsidies.
posted by punkbitch at 1:20 PM on February 3, 2006

A peasant is a subsistance farmer. They survive on what they grow and rarely sell their crops. Most peasants in the world don't even have access to viable markets.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:22 PM on February 3, 2006

40 something posts and no-one has mentioned the failed 1 day coup of 2002, supposedly orchestrated by the CIA, or the documentary film (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) created by an Irish television crew that happened to be there.

Why is the US so afraid of Chavez, a democratically elected, although distinctly authoritarian strongman? Could it be because we supported Carlos Ortega (leader of the CTV union), and Pedro Carmona (Head of the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Industry and Commerce, and president from April 12-13th 2002) who were for the privatization of CITGO/PDVSA?

Call Chavez whatever you want, but he is without a doubt the democratically elected leader of his nation, with overwhelming support of the rural poor - which is exactly why over 1,000,000 of them surrounded the Miraflores presidential palace the day after the coup, and demanded that Chavez be re-instated (He had been removed from the country, and was in a "secret location")
posted by SweetJesus at 1:24 PM on February 3, 2006

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.

Sure there is. If Adolf had put all that energy into, saying, making delicious lollipops instead of genocide, he'd count as a benevolent dictator.

Chavez is not nice. In fact, he's been really bad for his people.

And there's the thing. Which "people" do we mean? His reign has been horrific for the 10% that used to run things, but it's been pretty good for the 90% that've spent most of the past century under the thumbs of the former.

And that's where "benevolent dictator" comes into play. Do the ends justify the means? I don't think they do, but Chavez presents a very ambivalent case, nonetheless.

I'm refusing to jump on the "Chavez doubleplusungood!" wagon not because Bush said it, but because of Chavez's record itself. There are as many times I think he's a vile dictator as I think he's probably the best thing to happen to South America. He's a very ambivalent character, and I don't think any of us have enough yet to say whether his influence is for good or ill.

He's not Hitler, he's not Mao, he's not even Castro ... I don't know what the hell he is, and I have no clue whether he's something wonderful or something evil. It's a topic where FUD is being meticulously produced on a massive scale as a matter of governmental policy, by both sides, so cutting to the truth is no easy matter.

Time will tell.
posted by jefgodesky at 1:26 PM on February 3, 2006

To clarify--"benevolent dictator" is itself an ambivalent phrase. Dictatorship is inherently bad, and benevolence is inherently good, so what do we make of a dictator who is benevolent? A goodly, kind-hearted autocrat with absolute power over life and death who brooks no opposition? At the end of the day, regardless of his disposition, he's still a dictator.
posted by jefgodesky at 1:29 PM on February 3, 2006

The whole situation is much more complicated than such simple, black-and-white moral judgments.

You can pretty much set up a macro to post this at the top of every comment thread; seems to be something often forgotten around here.

It's easy to forget (or to never learn) that Hitler's ability to do what he did -- and his reasons for doing what he did -- came from crazy-whack out-of-control inflation and other difficulties that the Germans faced after WWI. It is most often when people have genuine (or imagined) problems to deal with that they seek an "outside" cause, and then seek to eliminate that cause. For Germany after WWI, German Jews were an ideal scapegoat, and as the problems in Germany got worse, it was darn near inevitable that action would need to be taken against the scapegoat in order to keep the regime in power. And so history is made.

In Venezuela, we have a situation where Chavez has accomplished many things (for example, tracking individual purchases with a national ID card) that other countries (US and UK, for instance) are attempting to do themselves in one form or another. I'm not going to say "this thing is good, and it offsets the bad things", but at the heart of it even the worst people often manage to accomplish good things -- it's what generally keeps them in power -- and rather than struggle with your own moral view of that trade-off, it's much easier to throw yourself to one side or the other, using whatever flimsy justification ("Rumsfeld says they're bad!", "Socialism is good!") you can get your hands on.

There's a reason the phrase "at least the trains ran on time" is often used sarcastically when discussing fascism; they did, and good things like that keep a populace distracted from the bad things going on until it's too late, and then you realize "oh, the trains ran on time, but what a price we paid!"

That's the key to consolidating power -- do it slowly, and throw a lot of obvious good in with the subtle bad, and a lot of the populace will praise your positive accomplishments and ignore (or tacitly approve of) your negative actions -- until the bad's not that subtle any more and people realize that the good is nowhere near worth the cost. By then, it's usually too late to stop.

And this fate, let's face it, happened to many a country in this last century, and could happen to others (Venezuela, US, lots more) in this century.

It's up to the people of each country to ensure that they are not willing to accept small brightly wrapped packages of "good" as a payoff for turning their backs on the large creeping mass of "bad" that's going on in the background.

That's not what I was going to say when I started this comment -- hmm, I think I need more tv and sleep.

On preview: I'm not suggesting that the national ID card thing is "good", because I don't think it is. However, both Chavez and the folks running the US and UK seem to think it is "good", and so it was apropos for making the point.
posted by davejay at 1:30 PM on February 3, 2006

roboto, I now agree but really love snarking. what I disagree with is the mao/chavez comparison.
posted by punkbitch at 1:31 PM on February 3, 2006

Put things into perspective. For many, many years, the US supported Franco who was basically like Hitler. He had Hitler help him with aid during Spain's civil war. He was a fascist dictator whose followers still to this day give the nazi salute. He killed huge numbers of people, possibly up to a few million over the length of his rule. During WW2 he had troops fight alongside the Germans on the Russian front. The US finally became allies and supported Franco from 1951 until his death in 1975. Think about that, for 24 years we supported someone who could easily put Chavez and Castro together to shame.
posted by JJ86 at 1:31 PM on February 3, 2006

"I mean, we've got Chavez Bush in Venezuela the US with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power"

There! Somebody had to do it.

Now lookie here people: This debate is pointless. By merely participating, Rumsfeld has won. I don't trust anyone in power and I am not defending Chavez but let's look at facts. Who might be tapping my phone? Who is redirecting all tax my money to weapons makers, pharmaceutical companies (Medicare debacle), etc with no return on my investment? Who is contributing to the fracturing of our society to point that I'd rather have hot wax poured on me than risk living in a red state? It ain't Chavez. As a US citizen, Buschco is way more dangerous to my freedoms than Chavez ... in fact, it's not even close. So, pardon me Rumsfeld, no, I won't look at the shiny object over there while you go about your business.
posted by a_day_late at 1:34 PM on February 3, 2006

a_day_late kills the lollipop guild and wins the thread
posted by punkbitch at 1:36 PM on February 3, 2006

a_day_late writes "As a US citizen, Buschco is way more dangerous to my freedoms than Chavez"

Well that's certainly a parochial, self-obsessed perspective.

I suppose that you're in no danger from the Janjaweed, so those people in Darfur can just go on and die? The Chinese government isn't repressing your reproductive rights, so the one-child policy is fine? You're not a woman in Saudi Arabia, so why should you be bothered about their lack of political rights and basic freedoms?

You seem to be the definition of the Ugly American.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:46 PM on February 3, 2006

I was much more leery of Chavez when he was issuing decrees and changing the constitution and extending his term without an election. Then he held an election, which was criticized but generally held by independent bodies (like the Carter Center) to have been fair, and he was re-elected. We'll see what happens when his term ends, now, I suppose. If he doesn't respect democracy, I'll feel free to oppose him again -- but I suspect he would be re-elected. Under the present Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, he is due to stand for re-election this July, and could win another six year term -- keeping him in office until 2012. (Under the Constitution in force when he was first elected, he would have been limited to a maximum of one five-year term concluding in 2003.)

He's a left-authoritarian, encourages a personality cult, and a bit of a demagogue. (Being cozy with Castro should tell you that much all by itself.) The targets of his policies are not just the "landed gentry", but Venezuela's thin middle-class. I know that by South American standards, a small businessman or an engineer is able to live like gentry, with household servants, security gates and guards, and relatively isolated from the masses. I know what this must look like to the masses. I have concerns that the Chavez approach will decimate the technocratic class that Venezuela needs to sustain its economy other than by selling oil. But it doesn't go much farther than that: I'm simply saying there's another side here that has little to do with the caricature offered by the Bush administration. Chavez, after all, has started no wars of aggression.

That said, when you look at South American in toto, you see the four or five major economies there all choosing left-leaning governments: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Bolivia ... and soon Mexico will likely join them. In other words, the Latin American political culture has taken a big dance step leftward, and it's going to be very interesting how the United States responds. These aren't all socialist red-wearing firebrands like Chavez -- some of them are suit-wearing economists. They're pushing back strongly against the Washington Consensus, and for better or worse, that's going to mean it's even harder for the US to exercise influence in the region (once considered the American "back yard").

The long-term worry is that this will encourage China to invest more financial and political capital, which could heighten tensions between Beijing and Washington.

By the way, Wikipedia's Hugo Chavez entry has been a Featured Article and is copiously researched and footnoted.
posted by dhartung at 1:47 PM on February 3, 2006

but it's been pretty good for the 90% that've spent most of the past century under the thumbs of the former.

Can anyone quantify this with facts?

From the World Factbook:

GDP Per Capita in 1998 - $8,500
GDP Per Capita in 2005 - $6,400

Unemployment in 1998 - 11.5%
Unemployment in 2005 - 12.4%

GDP PPP 1998 - $194.5 bn
GDP PPP 2005 - $161.7 bn

Spread the Wealth Selectively: Those expecting Chávez’s populism to benefit citizens according to need, rather than political usefulness, do not understand competitive autocracy. Chávez’s populism is grandiose, but selective. His supporters will receive unimaginable favors, and detractors are paid in insults. Denying the opposition spoils while lavishing supporters with booty has the added benefit of enraging those not in his camp and fueling the polarization that the competitive autocrat needs.

Chávez has plenty of resources from which he can draw. He is, after all, one of the world’s most powerful CEOs in one of the world’s most profitable businesses: selling oil to the United States. He has steadily increased personal control over PDVSA. With an estimated $84 billion in sales for 2005, PDVSA has the fifth-largest state-owned oil reserves in the world and the largest revenues in Latin America after PEMEX, the Mexican state-oil company. Because PDVSA participates in both the wholesale and retail side of oil sales in the United States (it owns CITGO, one of the largest U.S. refining companies and gas retailers), it makes money whether the price of oil is high or low.

But sloshing around oil money isn’t polarizing enough. Chávez needs conflict, and his recent expropriation of private land has provided it. In mid-2005, the national government, in cooperation with governors and the national guard, began a series of land grabs. Nearly 250,000 acres were seized in August and September, and the government announced that it intends to take more. The constitution permits expropriations only after the National Assembly consents or the property has been declared idle. Chávez has found another way—questioning land titles and claiming that the properties are state-owned. Chávez supporters quickly applauded the move as virtuous Robinhoodism. Of course, a government sincerely interested in helping the poor might have simply distributed some of the 50 percent of Venezuelan territory it already owns, most of which is idle. But giving away state land would not enrage anyone.

Most expropriated lands will likely end up in the hands of party activists and the military, not the very poor. Owning a small plot of land is a common retirement dream among many Venezuelan sergeants, which is one reason that the military is hypnotized by Chávez’s land grab. Shortly after the expropriations were announced, a public dispute erupted between the head of the National Institute of Lands, Richard Vivas, a radical civilian, and the minister of food, Rafael Oropeza, an active-duty general, over which office would be in charge of expropriations. No one expects the military to walk away empty-handed.

Accusations are also being made by what independent media is left that the much-heralded medical clinics don't have even basic medicine or trained doctors, and that most wealth re-distribution schemes are little more than government propaganda and miniscule handouts masquerading as "change".
posted by loquax at 1:48 PM on February 3, 2006

a_day_late writes "As a US citizen, Buschco is way more dangerous to my freedoms than Chavez"

Well that's certainly a parochial, self-obsessed perspective.

You seem to be the definition of the Ugly American.

Me thinkith that you have missed his actual point, and are looking rather foolish for it.
posted by phearlez at 1:58 PM on February 3, 2006

"You seem to be the definition of the Ugly American."

I don't know how you arrived at that. Chavez is democratically elected so he is the problem/blessing of his public. It's therefore not my business to butt in into their business, unless he presents a clear and present danger to the US. And no, I'm not talking ideology. Socialism, or any ism is not a danger to me. Let capitalism win worldwide appeal on merit...not by overturning every government we don't like. Seems to me that my way of thinking is the opposite of the ugly American.
posted by a_day_late at 1:59 PM on February 3, 2006

Huey Long was a benevelont dictator. Chavez is not.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:00 PM on February 3, 2006

mr roboto:
i think a_day_late's point was relativistic, but applicable. he's condemning an elected government for those policies that have an effect on him. The same government, by the way, that is taking issue with the subject in question: Chavez.

Both sides, Chavez and Bushco are using pretty extreme rhetoric when discussing eachother.

I guess a super-extreme example: Stalin condemning Hitler for genocide. Who are we to applaud.

But beyond that ... Chavez is a populist, yes. But his power in Latin America, while huge, is nothing compared to U.S. power in the world. The potential for damage by Bush seems greater.
posted by punkbitch at 2:00 PM on February 3, 2006

So apparently criticizing comparing Chavez to Hitler is the same as support for Chavez? What a bunch of kneejerk bullshit...
posted by iamck at 2:04 PM on February 3, 2006

The potential for damage by Bush seems greater.

Barring an unthinkable collapse of American values, law and government, Bush will be gone in two years. It's almost a forgone conclusion that Chavez will be around for as long as he likes, and has no check whatsoever on his personal power. Bush does, despite the rhetoric. At the moment, it's not much. Who knows what it will be in 2015?
posted by loquax at 2:04 PM on February 3, 2006

punkbitch writes "Stalin condemning Hitler for genocide. Who are we to applaud. "

Neither. Why do we have to applaud anyone? As has been pointed out extensively in this thread, geopolitics is not a zero-sum game. That which hurts Chavez does not necessarily help Bush.

That said, we would have to acknowledge the factual accuracy of Stalin's condemnation. Else we'd be holocaust deniers.

phearlez writes "Me thinkith that you have missed his actual point, and are looking rather foolish for it."

What was his point? That things which have a direct effect on him are more important to him? No shit. I don't see how that figures into an objective discussion, particularly on a website with an international membership and audience.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:08 PM on February 3, 2006

Chavez will be around for as long as he likes.
Come on. Chavez will be around for as long as a majority wants him there. You're right that he's basically a sure thing for another term though -- he has popular support.

And now I'm going to second the any ism is not a danger to me.
posted by punkbitch at 2:12 PM on February 3, 2006

Snark. come on, whose denying a holocaust here? That pretty much came out of nowhere -- speaking of objective discussion relative to the topic.

I think my not applauding Stalin or Hitler was implied. Somebody back me up here.
posted by punkbitch at 2:15 PM on February 3, 2006

Another black vs white ? Democrat vs Republican ? Good vs Evil ?

I'm so fucking sick of these simplistic dicotomies... Hitler, Mussolini and maybe other dictators certainly did something somebody considered good and that many considered good ..for instance in Italy some significant beneficial agricultural works were done under the fascist direction.

Yet that doesn't make fascism any less corporative, dictatorial and nationalistic.

Now there are aspect of the election and counter-coup of Chavez that seem populistic..yet similar populism , but in a different packaging was and is still present in U.S. in which appeals to leadership and unity of leadership are just remodeled appeals to ONE authority figure..that of the El Presidente Bush.

El Presidente said on January 6, 2001 'You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror

That is an incredible oversimplification, a strikingly false dicotomy yet... isn't is easy to grasp ? All black and white is easy to grasp , but also very misleading. It doesn't sound populistic as there's no appeal to masses like "power to the people" , but it was a statement designed for masses treated as whole bunch of lazy asses that can't go much further then "right vs wrong".
posted by elpapacito at 2:15 PM on February 3, 2006

Barring an unthinkable collapse of American values, law and government, Bush will be gone in two years. It's almost a forgone conclusion that Chavez will be around for as long as he likes, and has no check whatsoever on his personal power. Bush does, despite the rhetoric. At the moment, it's not much. Who knows what it will be in 2015?
posted by loquax at 5:04 PM EST on February 3 [!]

OK, maybe you are right ... but maybe you are not. I have been in the US since 1966 and never have I seen executive power so consistently abused with no repercussions. Now, I fear the Supreme court is stacked as well (and who knows if there will be more appointments?). It's not inconceivable to me that we may well have hit a tilting point. I mean, throw in a major terrorist attack, a couple of more military confrontations, and add a slice of major economic trouble, and we will all be checking our constitutional rights at the door. I no longer think that scenario is only for the tin-foil hatters.
posted by a_day_late at 2:16 PM on February 3, 2006

"What's the AFA doing involved in foreign politics?"

They're not really very American and not really about "Family" - unless it's a Christian family tuned to JesusTV 24/7.
Otherwise they're pious hypocrites.
posted by drstein at 2:23 PM on February 3, 2006

There's a reason the phrase "at least the trains ran on time" is often used sarcastically when discussing fascism; they did

No they didn't. Why are people so eager to accept that myth? Dictatorships aren't more efficient, they're just better at covering up the problems.

Also, Hitler was not democratically elected; he was appointed.

I repeat, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Unless, of course, you're one of his support group.
posted by languagehat at 2:23 PM on February 3, 2006

What was his point? That things which have a direct effect on him are more important to him? No shit. I don't see how that figures into an objective discussion, particularly on a website with an international membership and audience.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:08 PM EST on February 3 [!]

I've already responded to your previous insult (and most graciously, I think). If you don't care to see that you are wrong about the intent of my comment, it's your problem, not mine.
posted by a_day_late at 2:23 PM on February 3, 2006

a_day_late writes "If you don't care to see that you are wrong about the intent of my comment, it's your problem, not mine."

I honestly don't understand the intent of your comment. Since we're Americans, we can't have opinions about the Venezuelan government?

No one on Metafilter is "overturning every government we don't like"; and I don't think anyone here has advocated for the overthrow of Chavez' government. You seem to be arguing against some Imperialist boogeyman.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:34 PM on February 3, 2006

But are the trains running on time?
posted by blue_beetle at 2:38 PM on February 3, 2006

I repeat, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Unless, of course, you're one of his support group.

So, was Marcus Aurelius not a good ruler, or not a dictator?
posted by jefgodesky at 2:40 PM on February 3, 2006

Casey Jones was like Hitler
posted by Smedleyman at 2:43 PM on February 3, 2006

You seem to be arguing against some Imperialist boogeyman.

The imperialist is no boogeyman.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:44 PM on February 3, 2006

I honestly don't understand the intent of your comment. Since we're Americans, we can't have opinions about the Venezuelan government?

No. I am not saying that. I am saying that Rumsfeld is trying to use the Chavez "threat" as a way of distracting us from the Bushco threat.

Also, conisder this:

But beyond that ... Chavez is a populist, yes. But his power in Latin America, while huge, is nothing compared to U.S. power in the world. The potential for damage by Bush seems greater.
posted by punkbitch at 5:00 PM EST on February 3 [!]
posted by a_day_late at 2:45 PM on February 3, 2006

And I'm saying that, despicable as he is, Rumsfeld might be right about the fact that Chavez is dangerous. To his own people and his region especially.

Ignoring Chavez' danger just to spite Rumsfeld seems petty and willfully ignorant. We are certainly capable of holding both "threats" in our minds simultaneously.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:51 PM on February 3, 2006

Absolutely. But Chavez is likely right about the U.S. threat to him as well.
posted by punkbitch at 3:06 PM on February 3, 2006

The Catholic Church, in particular the local Cardinal, has been saying for a long time that Chavez is now essentially a dictator. He also calls into question Chavez's commitment to the poor:

Cardinal Lara also warned that “the extremely high price of oil, which would allow many problems to be solved, is being used instead to fund multi-million dollar gifts to obtain uncertain political loyalty from other nations, while in Venezuela we are painfully feeling the lack of interventions and projects to equip hospitals with what they need, to repair communication channels and city streets, to build housing and schools.”

posted by caddis at 3:07 PM on February 3, 2006

Chavez's danger might not be greater than Rumsfeld's. I think I'll stand by that statement...
posted by punkbitch at 3:08 PM on February 3, 2006

Venenzuelans who are here in America seem to really dislike Chavez.

Rumsfeld's reasons for disliking Chavez likely have nothing in common with Venenzuelans' reasons.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:10 PM on February 3, 2006

mr_roboto wrote: "(As for the U.S. administrations opposition to Chavez: even a broken clock is right twice a day....)"

This is absolutely true.

Keep reading this until you get it.

Get it?
posted by Clementines4ever at 3:41 PM on February 3, 2006

I’m not thrilled with Chavez. But everyone is Hitler now

Amen. and of course, as always:



posted by matteo at 3:41 PM on February 3, 2006

Ignoring Chavez' danger just to spite Rumsfeld seems petty and willfully ignorant. We are certainly capable of holding both "threats" in our minds simultaneously.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:51 PM EST on February 3 [!]

You're putting words on my keyboard and misrepresenting the situation as well. First of all, I said nothing about spiting Rumsfeld. I merely recognize what that he is trying to distract us from his own administration's miserable record and i suggest we not take the bait. Secondly, who decided on two threats? If we are to get bent out of shape about what Chavez might do to his region, what should we think about N. Korea, Iran, Darfur? Additionally, we must be very careful in taking any actions (or even making threats) against democratically elected foreign governments, lest we undo the peoples' attempts to govern themselves (all good intentions notwithstanding).
posted by a_day_late at 3:45 PM on February 3, 2006

a_day_late writes "I merely recognize what that he is trying to distract us from his own administration's miserable record and i suggest we not take the bait."

What do you mean "take the bait"? I think everyone here can appraise the situation in Venezuela without forgetting that the U.S. has invaded Iraq and is facing domestic threats to civil liberties etc. Why are you so worried about being "distracted"?

a_day_late writes "Secondly, who decided on two threats? "

You're the one who framed this as a tradeoff, with Venezuela serving as a mere distraction from domestic policy concerns.

a_day_late writes "Additionally, we must be very careful in taking any actions (or even making threats) against democratically elected foreign governments, lest we undo the peoples' attempts to govern themselves (all good intentions notwithstanding)."

Who is this "we"? I'm speaking only for myself here. I don't pretend that my opinions represent anyone else. And I certainly don't think the US government should be in the business of overthrowing foreign governments, democratic or otherwise, except in the most extreme circumstances.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:56 PM on February 3, 2006

mr_roboto, we are talking at each other because: you said of me, "You seem to be the definition of the Ugly American."

I disagreed and made a counter-argument. Now, we are far afield debating other things and parsing words. Rather than continue down an unproductive path (wasting time and bandwidth), I think I will just let your ugly American comment stand on its own merits and let others draw their own conclusions.

Cheers.
posted by a_day_late at 5:30 PM on February 3, 2006

There was an article in the WSJ a few weeks ago about how Chavez's gov't is taking over the private sector. The govt' goes and and pressures the business to "voluntarily" accept a loan. As part of the deal, mgmt essentially has to give up control of the company to the workers (i.e. become a Co-Op) and then the gov't get some ownership of the business somehow as well.

That freaks me the hell out. Keep in mind, Chavez's definition of "voluntarily" is a lot different than yours or mine.

Socialism sucks. If we could make it look like an accident I'd go with the Pat Robertson plan.
posted by b_thinky at 5:46 PM on February 3, 2006

(last sentence was a joke)
posted by b_thinky at 5:47 PM on February 3, 2006

b_thinky is the new Ann Coulter.
posted by billysumday at 7:39 PM on February 3, 2006

Rumsfeld is obviously besieged by senile dementia. I can't think of a more suitable explanation for his increasingly frequent departures from reason. But then there are known knowns, known unknowns...
posted by clevershark at 8:16 PM on February 3, 2006

There was an article in the WSJ a few weeks ago about how Chavez's gov't is taking over the private sector. The govt' goes and and pressures the business to "voluntarily" accept a loan. As part of the deal, mgmt essentially has to give up control of the company to the workers (i.e. become a Co-Op) and then the gov't get some ownership of the business somehow as well

Corporations do the same thing in the other direction; hard working, regular people get fucked, either way.
posted by Rothko at 8:22 PM on February 3, 2006

irony is dead.



and there are some caveats to the economic statistics quoted for Chavez. The Venezuelan economy has been on a slide since the 1970s which he has helped level off, it doesn't note the improvements of state-run instituions such as health care, and the employment statistics don't note that he presided over the oil strikes - the largest employer in the country. He has numerous programs that actively seek out helping the poor, compared to nothing before.

Not a fan of his consolidation of power, but how many people call out Godwin's law in a thread around here but won't stand up when the Secretary of Defense does it?
posted by destro at 9:07 PM on February 3, 2006

destro, that's unfair. Why, just this afternoon I biked over to the Pentagon and had a chat with the man. He's promised to be more circumspect in future, lest he rue the day of his bannination.
posted by dhartung at 9:35 PM on February 3, 2006

In the future, everyone will be Hitler for fifteen minutes.

And hey, look: "Hugo Chavez compares Spanish PM Jose Aznar to Hitler." (from the link above). What goes around comes around, Hugo.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:01 PM on February 3, 2006

Was Hitler a British agent? perpetual war for profit.
posted by hortense at 10:51 PM on February 3, 2006

According to my statistic, everybody in Metafilter is wrong except me.

My sample is huge 1.2 million message and not a single time I was told "elpapacito, you're so fucking right It rules to be you" ..therefore given that a clock is at least right twice a day and that I wear a clock , I must be right.
posted by elpapacito at 4:42 AM on February 4, 2006

Does anyone have any meaningful facts about the state of Venezuela's economy?

Loquax mentioned a declining GDP, but I would argue that it's a misleading statistic. The GDP might drop overall if some large businesses decline, but the median income (not the mean!) could still rise if the distribution of wealth is made more equal.

Everyone seems to agree Chavez is some kind of socialist — but the question is: is he the Stalinist kind who merely drags everyone down to equal poverty, or the, uh, (insert name of successfully benevolent socialist dictator here)... theoretical kind who actually makes poor people richer by re-engineering the national economy?
posted by attaboy at 6:45 AM on February 4, 2006

And hey, look: "Hugo Chavez compares Spanish PM Jose Aznar to Hitler." (from the link above). What goes around comes around, Hugo.

Great reasoning there. "but he called somebody Hitler first, so it's ok". it was stupid when Chavez did it, so it's ok for the US to decalre people Hitler? and don't forget that we usually invade countries after calling their leaders Hitler-like.
posted by destro at 12:00 PM on February 4, 2006

and don't forget that we usually invade countries after calling their leaders Hitler-like.

Usually? As in more than once? Can you name each incident when the U.S. has called a world leader Hitler-like and then invaded their country?
posted by JekPorkins at 12:05 PM on February 4, 2006

Funny thread, too bad I got here so late in the game. Could have called rocket88 on his lies (either show proof or stop lying). Or discussed deeply loquax very imprecise list (all additional powers Chavez got were got through the vote of the elected Venezuelan Representatives, accusing him of promoting loyal generals is almost funny if some high military officers hadn't been deeply involved in every attempt to oust Chavez illegally and most of the perceived authoritarian laws were needed to disarm the traps a violent and parasite elite had left after centuries in power, like the changing of the Supreme Court).

I find it precious that comparing anyone to Hitler usually issues a enraged debate about the improper comparison, but here we find people justifying Rumsfeld - I would like these people to show evidence of genocide, of a war to conquer neighbors (or even the intent to have one), of real threats to the democracy (except maybe by the golpist opposition that, when faced with certain defeat in the last Congress election and after the Electoral Commission agreed to make all changes they demanded, simply refused to participate in the process), etc. Comparing Chavez to Hitler is not only a low blow, it is probably another desperate act by a government caught again without its pants. It is almost a confirmation that the American diplomat expelled from Venezuela was really a spy and probably a very important one to cause such an attack.
posted by nkyad at 12:15 PM on February 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

what nkyad said.

And let me give Dubya credit for something. He's done a helluva' job turning the rest of the world against his cronies ideas.
posted by nofundy at 12:57 PM on February 4, 2006

For Saddam:

British Foreign Secretary compares Saddam to Hitler

"Think of the prelude to World War Two. Think of all the countries that said, well, we don’t have enough evidence. I mean, Mein Kampf had been written. Hitler had indicated what he intended to do. The people who argued for waiting for more evidence have to ask themselves how they are going to feel at that point where another event occurs."

- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (London Telegraph, August 21, 2002)

Most of the quotes come from the media though:

"[C]learly written, concise and sharply argued...[Shawcross] skillfully presents the strongest case possible for both the necesssity and moral imperative for waging war to free Iraq from the reign of the Hitler-like Hussein."
- New York Post


Milosevic:

Political leaders do this kind of thing. Think the Germans would have perpetrated the Holocaust on their own without Hitler? Was there something in the history of the German race that made them do this? No.

- Bill Clinton
posted by destro at 1:03 PM on February 4, 2006

Sweet. But is the Milosevic comparison not at least a bit stronger than the Chavez one? I mean, he was a genocidal maniac, after all. Not that sanctions and bombing worked terribly well (after all, the coup was ultimately staged by a guy with a bulldozer).
posted by JekPorkins at 1:09 PM on February 4, 2006

When Chavez invades Poland, then I'll credit Rumsfeld for calling it accurately. Until then, he's an asshole who can't do anything right, even given the resources of the US. Typical lying PNAC asshole Nixon retread who hates the idea of real democracy.
posted by nofundy at 1:37 PM on February 4, 2006

Caracas — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez extended his verbal war with Washington, likening President George W. Bush to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, while saying he is considering buying enough rifles to arm one million Venezuelans to repel a possible U.S. invasion.

Speaking at a mass rally Saturday commemorating a failed 1992 coup he led as a lieutenant-colonel, Mr. Chavez warned Washington is considering invading Venezuela and the country needs more weapons to defend itself.

“We still need a higher number of rifles,” he said.

“The 100,000 Russian rifles are not enough. Venezuela needs to have one million well-equipped and well-armed men and women.”

Relations between Washington and Caracas have been tense in recent months, in part due to U.S. criticism of Venezuela's purchases of military equipment, including 100,000 Russian-made Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Mr. Chavez told the crowd of cheering supporters he had started making contacts with other countries that would be able to supply the additional rifles.

During Saturday's speech, the Venezuelan leader also responded to comments made Thursday by U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who compared Mr. Chavez to Hitler and warned about populist leadership in Bolivia and Cuba, both close allies of Venezuela.

“The imperialist, mass-murdering, fascist attitude of the president of the United States doesn't have limits,” Mr. Chavez said.

“I think Hitler could be a nursery baby next to George W. Bush.”
posted by loquax at 10:31 PM on February 4, 2006

Yo Slithy: That's a hell of a link. Thanks.
posted by donpedro at 4:00 PM on February 6, 2006