Comments on: You messed with me, birdie. No?

You messed with me, birdie. No?

ruelle — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:30:13 -0800

"You are a donkey, Mr Danger" Hugo Chavez woos Bush.

By: 3.2.3

3.2.3 — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:40:19 -0800

Different reporting from AP on U.S. ambassador's behavior.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:40:39 -0800

He is not a donkey. He is a dog

By: Drexen

Drexen — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:46:16 -0800

... snap?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:48:43 -0800

Chavez's speaking style isn't really that great, IMO. Hardly stirring oration, and the rhetoric seems silly and lacking and real depth. I've still yet to see any of Chavez's critics come up with any specific complaints about his policies other then his "style". It's like this weird echo chamber. Everyone knows Chavez is bad even though no one ever says why he's bad other then that he likes Castro, who everyone knows is totally bad.

By: tula

tula — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:50:31 -0800

I can't wait to see what Jon Stewart does with this.

By: Drexen

Drexen — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:51:04 -0800

P.S. I think srboisvert meant: dog. Which, indeed.. is a pretty wild display of question-dodging. These two should debate.

By: punkfloyd

punkfloyd — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:51:10 -0800

Don't mean to hijack this post, but I have been thinking a lot lately about how the world viewed the USA on September 12, 2001. I think that an astute leader could have leveraged...OK exploited... the global sentiments and achieved more politically than we have militarily. Having said that, I think Chavez in an opportunist.

By: hoverboards don't work on water

hoverboards don't work on water — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:53:07 -0800

Wow, it's like he's reading from Slashdot.

By: 999

999 — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:01:54 -0800

I await Bush's equally intelligent retaliatory comments. I'd probably put money on the word 'terrrst' or 'nucular' slipping in there somewhere too...

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:09:32 -0800

Gotta love diplomatic incidents where both countries involved benefit from them for domestic consumption. They should just film Chavez sticking a thumb in Bush's eye, and Bush doing the same, and the news media can show whichever clip is appropriate for each country.

By: kingfisher, his musclebound cat

kingfisher, his musclebound cat — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:11:58 -0800

He should have sang . . . You're a mean one Mr. Bush You really are a heel. You're as cuddly as a cactus, And as charming as an eel, Mr. Bush! You're a bad banana, With a greasy black peel! You're a monster, Mr. Bush! Your heart's an empty hole. Your brain is full of spiders. You've got garlic in your soul, Mr. Bush! but I guess donkey is ok, too.

By: birdherder

birdherder — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:03 -0800

I am going to start referring to Bush as Mr. Danger. El Sr. Peligro.

By: Malor

Malor — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:18 -0800

delmoi, I don't have the specifics handy, but he's no angel.... he looks like a lefty-authoritarian type, suppressing speech, rigging votes, and arming a huge 'people's militia'. Left-authoritarian versus right-authoritarian.... there's no good guys here, but Chavez might least mean well. Might. He hasn't invaded any countries yet, at least.

By: adamrice

adamrice — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:17:18 -0800

Hugo Chavez is no Fidel Castro. Now Castro, there's a guy who can rant.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:18:52 -0800

I thought danger was his - middle - name.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:21:35 -0800

I really wish I could refute Mr. Chavez's allegations, but, try as I may, I just can't. Sad. Es verdad, El Sr. Peligro es muy malo.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:22:24 -0800

Chavez's speaking style isn't really that great, IMO. Hardly stirring oration, and the rhetoric seems silly and lacking and real depth. I've urged it before on the blue and I'll urge it again. Please see "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". There are parts of that where he sounds as stirring as Thomas Jefferson. He's also at a disadvantage usually because the major networks down there are all in bed with the oil companies who hate him bigtime. suppressing speech, rigging votes, and arming a huge 'people's militia'. Uh, that'd be utter horseshit. I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but he's the only one there who's not doing that. The biggest link he has to 'Left -authoritairan' stuff is that he partially privatised the oil companies. Y'know, because people were starving and illiterate while the oil companies took all the money they could make and stashed it in swiss banks.

By: Malor

Malor — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:31:51 -0800

lumpenprole, didn't he just commit to buying either 100,000 or a million Kalashnikovs and several attack helicopters?

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:33:07 -0800

Did he?

By: unreason

unreason — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:33:30 -0800

Uh, that'd be utter horseshit. I don't know where you're getting your facts from How about the Human Rights Watch?

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:34:34 -0800

didn't he just commit to buying either 100,000 or a million Kalashnikovs and several attack helicopters Could be, I don't know.

By: MiltonRandKalman

MiltonRandKalman — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:55:54 -0800

Malor asked didn't he just commit to buying either 100,000 or a million Kalashnikovs and several attack helicopter? Yes, mostly for his shiny new civilian militia

By: blahblahblah

blahblahblah — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:58:20 -0800

Speaking in the capital Caracas, Mr Chavez said 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles already on order from Russia were not enough. Venezuela needed a million well-armed men and women, he said. Anyhow, love the picture: You don't have to be a fan of Bush to agree with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that he is systematically undermining democracy in Venezeula.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:59:43 -0800

"I'm not your favorite person."

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:07:16 -0800

lumpenprole writes "Uh, that'd be utter horseshit. I don't know where you're getting your facts from" Reporters Without Borders.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:08:58 -0800

Didn't bush commit to buying 250 Joint Strike Fighters and a few dozen f-22 raptors? We also have a national guard. It looks like he's preparing what could someday be an insurgent network. Something that could be used to defend against outside forces, or keep him in power -- definitely a bad thing. Simply having an army is not, it, a bad thing though. I agree it's worrisome, though.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:12:48 -0800

You don't have to be a fan of Bush to agree with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that he is systematically undermining democracy in Venezeula. I could argue Bush is doing the same here, don't you think? Methinks it all depends on whose horse is getting gored.

By: unreason

unreason — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:16:59 -0800

Didn't bush commit to buying 250 Joint Strike Fighters and a few dozen f-22 raptors? It's true that Chavez has every right to prepare to resist any threats against his country. But it's also true that the threat of a US attack makes a nice excuse for building a private army. The US is Chavez's Eurasia/Eastasia, and anyone who disagrees with him is a Goldstein. Here's the thing, and it kinda gets lost when you just say how many arms Chavez bought: He's actually bought more weapons than he has soldiers. He's bought more rifles than he's ever likely to need. The reason is that he's arming his citizen militia. The problem with this militia is that it's pretty much loyal to him and him alone rather to the nation as a whole, and it is composed of Chavez supporters that have in the past beaten up anti-Chavez demonstrators. So it's not really comparable to Bush giving weapons to the National Guard. It'd be more like if Bush organized the far right wing of the GOP into civilian commando units, gave them machine guns, and told them to patrol outside the Democratic National Convention.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:17:30 -0800

Benny Andajetz writes "I could argue Bush is doing the same here, don't you think? " So what?

By: mert

mert — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:24:18 -0800

I too saw The Revolution Will not be televised (available on bittorrent) and was convinced that Chavez is the real deal. The behavior of the media in that documentary was completely reprehensible, they were basically an extension of the ruling class, the propaganda machine of the wealthy (way more than Fox news). Time will tell what to make of these reports of "increasing authoritative behavior," I'd hate to think that we're witnessing the fabled ability of power to corrupt.

By: Malor

Malor — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:26:53 -0800

delmoi, I was arguing with lumpenprole, who said my claims were 'utter horseshit'. So I demonstrated that at least one of my claims was true with a fact I knew and could spit out instantly. He didn't know about it, or apparently all the other stuff that Chavez has been up to, so his assertion of 'utter horseshit'... well, let's chalk it up to Internet hyperbole and move on. By itself, I wouldn't be that worried about the people's militia, but given the other steps he's been taking, he could potentially turn into Stalin's Mini-Me.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:32:25 -0800

So what? Are you for real? America is supposed to be the gold standard for democracy, and yet our rights are being stripped faster than day old paint. People are condemning a man for arming his country, when we can blow up the planet 10,000 times over and still need more? We can sensibly argue that we can attack other countries preemptively, but noone else has that authority? We can back a (democratic) President that argues that he doesn't have to answer to Congress or the people? A Vice President who believes that torture is noble and necessary? An Attorney General that justifies illegal domestic surveillance of citizens? A Congress who can't find their Constitutional balls with both hands? There was a time when speaking truth to power was admirable. No more, not here. Jingoism is the rule of the day. I guess it beats thinking. That's so what.

By: Megafly

Megafly — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:34:14 -0800

Arming civilian Militias is a crazy Socialist Idea. He must be stopped!!

By: tsarfan

tsarfan — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:37:52 -0800

i liked how one of the military dudes in the front row wasnt clapping. as if to say, "bro, sure Bush is a donkey, but hes a loco donkey. take it easy funny man." regardless, i now heart Chavez. and mr. danger is the "least".

By: Decani

Decani — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:38:38 -0800

People are condemning a man for arming his country, when we can blow up the planet 10,000 times over and still need more? We can sensibly argue that we can attack other countries preemptively, but noone else has that authority? Benny, Benny, Benny. You're forgetting that Americans are superior human beings and that the American political system is a superior system. That's why they're allowed ~~to be stinking, hypocritical, two-faced, bully-boy bastards~~ certain things they can be trusted with which ~~untermenschen~~ other people cannot.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:48:01 -0800

Benny Andajetz writes "That's so what." I mean, what does it have to do with the state of democracy and press freedom in Venezuela? What about speaking truth to left-wing authoritarian power?

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:51:28 -0800

I mean, isn't it kind of jingoistic and chauvinistic to insist that we must analyze Venezuelan politics through an American lens; that we can only define the situation there in contrast to the situation here? That seems short-sighted both in geopolitical and historic terms.

By: unreason

unreason — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:54:44 -0800

What mr_roboto said. Chavez is doing some bad things. How do they become okay because Bush is doing some other bad things?

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:56:39 -0800

Mr. Chavez should beware of Mr. Bush's using "coercive diplomacy" in Venezuela as it is said he might in Iran. Where is Bill Clinton to say "Define coercive diplomacy"?

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:07:59 -0800

I mean, what does it have to do with the state of democracy and press freedom in Venezuela? What about speaking truth to left-wing authoritarian power? Chavez is a democratically elected leader of a sovereign country. The people of Venezuela, by and large, support him. Until they vote him out, or ask for outside help to oust him, it's not within my (or my country's) authority to do anything about it. The US demands that the rest of the world respects it's sovereignty, and yet feels no compunction to respect anybody else's. And to denounce the state of democracy and press freedom in Venezuela while letting our's go to hell in a handbasket is the ultimate avoidance of responsibility. "Left-wing authoritarian power" is a pejorative term on a conveniently sliding scale, by the way. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter which side it comes from. How come it's so easy for so many people to see it in Cuba and Venezuela, and not here?

By: unreason

unreason — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:10:04 -0800

letting our's go to hell in a handbasket Ours? Who's "ours"? There are lots of human rights groups that are not based in the US that are criticizing Chavez. Why should they keep quiet because of US policy?

By: Malor

Malor — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:13:19 -0800

Benny, I just didn't want to get into that because I didn't think it really mattered that much for this specific discussion. I was avoiding Godwinning the thread, because if Chavez is Stalin's Mini-Me, it doesn't leave many metaphorical options for Bush. Lefty-authoritarian versus righty-authoritarian.... it's no wonder they don't get along.

By: abulafa

abulafa — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:21:57 -0800

Who is so desperate for a "real deal" revolutionary that we want to hoist Chavez up there, quietly ignoring his policies curbing government criticism? Chavez-as-icon seems like a very convenient poison for the US well. When he implodes, the self-righteous right can tut tut at all the silly things he said and lump all their critics in with his fringe.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:25:52 -0800

Am I the only one in favor of left-wing authoritarianism? OK. Carry on, then.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:27:31 -0800

Ours? Who's "ours"? There are lots of human rights groups that are not based in the US that are criticizing Chavez. Why should they keep quiet because of US policy? unreason: I'm not arguing that anybody should stay quiet about anything. I think everybody needs to be called on wrongdoing. I just don't think that the boos and hisses are being handed out very evenhandedly these days (glass houses and all that). Chavez could be a saint or the next Stalin. Unless, and until, he betrays his right to lead his country, it's nobody's business but Venezuela's citizens. Not being cowed by the USA is not a crime.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:27:36 -0800

Benny Andajetz writes "The people of Venezuela, by and large, support him. Until they vote him out, or ask for outside help to oust him, it's not within my (or my country's) authority to do anything about it." But you're a thinking human being who can have opinions on various issues, no? I mean, no one on Metafilter is going to go storming in to liberate Venezuela. We just discuss stuff here. Benny Andajetz writes "The US demands that the rest of the world respects it's sovereignty, and yet feels no compunction to respect anybody else's. And to denounce the state of democracy and press freedom in Venezuela while letting our's go to hell in a handbasket is the ultimate avoidance of responsibility." Nor do I purport to represent the opinion, official or otherwise, of the United States. I'm just a guy, and I'm certainly not responsible for the state of press freedom in the US. I don't see why any of this has a bearing on my expression of my opinions. Would they be more valid if I were Canadian? Mexican? Or are only citizens of a particular country allowed to voice opinions on the state of that country? Benny Andajetz writes ". How come it's so easy for so many people to see it in Cuba and Venezuela, and not here?" How about this--and get ready to have your mind blown--Hugo Chavez and George W. Bush are both dangerous proto-authoritarians. I mean, Hitler and Stalin hated each other, too. That doesn't mean we have to pick sides....

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:29:05 -0800

Benny Andajetz writes "I just don't think that the boos and hisses are being handed out very evenhandedly these days (glass houses and all that)." You want to see boos and hisses handed out to the Bush administration? Let me introduce you to a little website called Metafilter.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:37:45 -0800

I'm just a guy, and I'm certainly not responsible for the state of press freedom in the US. I guess that gets to the gist of my frustration these days, because, yes, you- and all of us US citizens are responsible for the state of press freedom (and all freedoms) in the US. I truly feel if we are happily eager to give our own government carte blanche control over our lives (in direct opposition to our ideals as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights), then it's highly suspect when we claim to see errors in other people's viewpoints regarding their own governance.

By: isopraxis

isopraxis — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:38:28 -0800

I'm with you mrgrimm, and I'd also like to see Chavez shut off the spigot of oil going to the U.S. and really see the whole thing go shithouse.

By: Makoto

Makoto — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:54:40 -0800

mr_roboto, the fact that your Reporters Without Borders link blandly supports an assertion of "massive fraud" in the Venezuelan presidential referendum--an assertion maintained by none of the domestic or international monitoring bodies that oversaw the referendum, who ruled it free and fair--leads me to question both the accuracy of and the intentions behind their other allegations. But taking them as written, how do 'journalists are required to have a journalism degree,' 'some journalists claim to have been attacked by Chávez supporters' and 'some media moguls have been investigated on suspicion of being tied to the 2002 coup' suggest that Chávez is authoritarian? This is Stalinesque behavior? 'Chávez buys armaments!' and 'Chávez extends preexisting laws in ways that don't alter his authority!' (unreason's link) are no more persuasive, IMO. Is Chávez a demagogue? Undoubtedly. Does he wear lots of red and engage in socialist rhetoric? Undeniably. Is the opposition fragmented and feeble, essentially leaving Chávistas to dominate Venezuelan politics? Sure--but by not effectively disentangling themselves from the coup attempt and corrupt politics generally, they have only themselves to blame for their lack of electoral support. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the persistent grumbling in the media about Chávez--especially in The Economist, where he shares Public Enemy #1 status with Robert Mugabe, while favorable articles are penned about the likes of Perez Musharraf and Hu Jintao--is due to the fact that he is insufficiently respectful of foreign business interests. This is no different from the stance that the United States has historically taken vis-a-vis Latin America, of course. So he's tarred with the brush of 'authoritarianism' on dubious to nonexistent evidence, while not a peep is heard about genuine authoritarian regimes in China, Pakistan and so on, or the very real erosion of democracy in Putin's Russia. Then again, I give equally short shrift to the 'George Bush as creeping theocratic dictator' school of thought--no, I haven't forgotten his quote on the possible virtues of American dictatorship--so maybe I'm just naive.

By: fungible

fungible — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:18:38 -0800

"OK, so you don't like me very much. What's your question?" (I get the feeling Bush'll be using that more and more.)

By: blendor

blendor — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:18:51 -0800

Ditto to whoever suggested the Revolution Will Not Be Televised (look for it on chomskytorrents.org). Ditto too to whoever hoped we're not seeing the corrupting influence of power. It was clear from the aforementioned documentary that Chavez had no intentions of stifling dissent - even after the coup attempt. Pretty big of him at the time, but I hope that hasn't changed.

By: anthill

anthill — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:19:33 -0800

How about comparing the state of Venezuela to that of its neighbors. Columbia's not doing so well. Guyana's OK. Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua... well, they've had their ups and downs.

By: blendor

blendor — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:21:23 -0800

Makoto makes an excellent point - he who doesn't play the same global economic game as the big boys becomes an international pariah; he who does gets to wear the Members Only jacket, no matter how many people suffer under his thumb.

By: Joseph Gurl

Joseph Gurl — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:26:20 -0800

Say what you will about HC, but he's just about the best thing going for Venezuela right now. After all, Argentina went from being World Bank poster boys to complete economic collapse (what does that tell us about the World Bank's "requirements" and "suggestions"), while Brazil has been pretty much recalcitrant to the World Bank, and they're finally making some good progress.

By: Decani

Decani — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:52:57 -0800

Well, he looks like a bit of a dildo there, but anyone who hates and mocks Bush can't be all bad. I like him. I like the way he taunts through action.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:55:29 -0800

Chavez is a democratically elected leader of a sovereign country. The people of Venezuela, by and large, support him. Until they vote him out, or ask for outside help to oust him, it's not within my (or my country's) authority to do anything about it. It was very heartening that he stood for the referendum and was affirmed in office (in elections that were audited favorably by the Carter Center) and is running for President again democratically. Nevertheless, the endorsement of the Venezuelan people does not trump my right to an opinion. After all, I have an opinion about Bush, and we held elections, and he got re-elected. I hope I can still state my opinion. Having an unfavorable opinion about Chavez, additionally, is by no means the same as endorsing my own country's "authority to do anything about it". Please don't advance straw men. As I've said previously, they both share an unfortunate fascination with accumulating power in the executive, and Chavez has suggested/threatened to change the constitution (again) so that he can stay in office still longer. His first time, you may recall, was already extended by the same means, and he pulled a real fast one there by asking for a longer term, then saying that he needed to serve the entire longer term without stepping down. The man is not advancing the rule of law. All the same, this was rambling but funny.

By: stenseng

stenseng — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:01:14 -0800

Well, he's certainly got Mr. Danger's number down...

By: graymouser

graymouser — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:27:52 -0800

The problem with critics of Chavez building a militia is, he's smart to do it. The man was the victim of a coup in April 2002, which the US immediately supported -- but which was undone by a spontaneous popular protest against it. He'd be an idiot not to have a reliable popular armed force in case of US intervention. Latin American history since 1954 has proved that leftist leaders in the region cannot be paranoid; the US is out to get them.

By: kcds

kcds — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:10:03 -0800

I thought danger was his - middle - name. : Smedleyman You're thinking of Austin "Danger" Powers. Mr Chavez is clearly talking about Nick Danger. Nick W. Danger, that is.

By: drdanger

drdanger — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:56:20 -0800

I cannot shake the eerie feeling that this is somehow directed at me.

By: Joakim Ziegler

Joakim Ziegler — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:06:15 -0800

I don't know the details of press freedom in Venezuela, but as shown in "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and elsewhere, the media in Venezuela are saying things about Chavez that are so far beyond what any mainstream media in the US is saying about Bush that I'm finding it hard to believe that they're having huge problems. The clip where a psychiatrist is on TV explaining how Chavez has a sexual fixation with Fidel Castro, for instance, is priceless.