As for Chavez. He is now rationing electricity. Guess you are wrong on all counts. Just like a bleeding heart!

Dilan Esper: There are big threats and little threats. There is more or less threat to our allies–Colombia, for example–to our basing in neighboring states.If our relationship with Colombia were truly important, this would be a concern. (And no, narcotics trafficking doesn’t count– we’d be better off if we didn’t worry so much about this.)There is cooperation on international crime, such as drugs, money-laundering.Then I guess we shouldn’t have relationships with China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Peru, the United Arab Emirates, or the aforementioned Colombia either, right?I mean, you can draw up a bill of particulars against any foreign leader, Chavez included. But that doesn’t mean that these things pose serious threats.Just for grins, if the balloon had gone up in Europe during the Cold War, one half of our supplies would have had to come from the Gulf ports through the Straits of Florida. That’s ninety miles wide and the resources needed to get the convoys through there would have had to be taken from the Third Battle of The North Atlantic. A chess piece here, one there, another some place else and somebody tells Brezhnev, “we can do it. we have the choke points and the strategic location”.Just how paranoid are you?I know the Cold War is over and we won–deal–so I use that only as an example of how what is clearly a threat can be obscured by the left. As is their goal today with other threats.This is complete crap. The international “left” is concerned with making governments more responsive to the poor. Chavez, for all of his faults, replaced people who let the slums of Caracas fester without electricity.You need to stop making up stupid and ill-informed conspiracy theories about people you disagree with. Chavez is no threat, and the American right is making complete asses of themselves over this issue.

I really don’t understand how this is different from, say, gay marriage or anti-tax advocates losing an intiative fight and saying they will be back in a couple of years with a new initiative. As long as Chavez doesn’t start implementing (as opposed to rhetorically endorsing) the constitutional changes that were rejected, there’s no issue here– he’s perfectly entitled to say that the voters got it wrong and they will be back with another initiative.

In any event, even if this statement meant that Chavez is violating the Venezuelan Constitution, this is totally irrelevant from a standpoint of US foreign policy. We have lots of allies and non-enemies out there who violate their nation’s internal laws in one respect or another.

What was turned down in the December 2007 referendum is now law. Nor did he abide by the spirit of 2008 mayoral and gubernatorial elections.

The first sentence is not true– the December 2007 referendum is not law, and the fact that he has gotten some other laws passed that give him similar powers to what he sought doesn’t make it so.

And as for “abiding by the spirit” of elections, I don’t even know what that means. It seems to me that this is an excuse for you to claim that he isn’t respecting democratic processes even when he is.

In any event, again, the US has no concern as to whether Chavez violates the internal laws of Venezuela. That may be your obsession, but our foreign policy principals have more important things to worry about.

This Tina Rosenberg article, “The Perils of Petrocracy”, appeared on November 4, 2007 in the NYT magazine. She discusses PDVSA involvement in the missions, an Chavista innovation to PDVSA. I agree with you that it is a well written article. What she writes supports my point of view.

She does have some facts in there that support your point of view. However, she also documents the things that Chavez has tried to do that his predecessors did not do.

Look, the article, in the end, points to the most legitimate criticism of Chavez, which is that he is squandering the country’s oil resources to buy short-term popularity. But you’ll notice, saying that isn’t the same thing as saying that he is evil incarnate.

And you’ll notice that THIS issue, unlike the issues you raise, is actually a national security concern of the US, as we need a stable supply of oil and Chavez’s failure to maintain crucial infrastructure and overuse of resources could cause supply problems in the future.

Venezuela criminalizes expression deemed disrespectful to public officials even if completely true.

Just like Singapore. Is Singapore an enemy of the United States? (I would mention Russia too, but you probably think Putin’s Russia is the reincarnation of the Soviet Union and we should start a new cold war.)

And, of course, the coup leaders of Honduras that you fellate at every opportunity also criminalized speech critical of the government and shut down the press.

Again, I am not here to defend Chavez’s record. There’s plenty wrong with it. But none of these things are really US interests except for his mismanagement of the oil resources. And if we cultivated a better relationship with him, we could probably move him in the right direction on that issue.

That, in any event, is what foreign policy is all about. You deal with individuals you don’t agree with, and put the proper inducements out there to get what you want. It may not give you the moral satisfaction that starting wars and declaring enemies right and left would, but your attitude will kill lots of Americans and I am not interested in killing lots of Americans.

Interesting you make no response to the problem I point out about “harmony” in Latin America: more countries do not accept the legitimacy of the recent elections in Honduras than do accept it.

They don’t feel as strongly about this as they did about the coup. As I said, even the Latin American right condemned the Honduran coup (whereas they have not come out against the Honduran elections), and anyone with any inkling of Latin American history would know why.

Since you brought up France, I might add that my opinion of France, an opinion based on contact with the French here in the US and in Latin America, changed in no way whatsoever as a result of what Chirac and Villepin did with regard to Iraq.

That’s very vague. Let’s spell it out. You think France is an enemy of the US too.

Just how many powerful governments do you wish to antagonize? And how many Americans are you willing to kill to do it?

Dilan Esper: It’s really not much different than Castro vs. Batista, except Chavez abides by election results. In both cases, you had right-wing kleptocracy give way to left-wing authoritarianism.

Interesting that you would bring up Batista, because both Batista and Chávez were army officers who led coups and were also elected. As Castro is Hugo’s buddy, one might benefit from going to the link I provided a while back on “Renaissance and Decay.” It shows the long term economic consequences of having such people in command, and also shows that contrary to Castro’s propaganda, Cuba was rather well off before 1959: such as its infant mortality rate.

I have given you documentation that Chávez’s abiding by the December 2007 referendum was only “por ahora,” for a while. Interesting that it was his old buddy General Baudel who informed him he had to accept the result of the referendum, and now Baudel is imprisoned. Not an accident, as some newspapers used to say. He abided by the results “por ahora,” for a while, and figured out how to circumvent the results. What was turned down in the December 2007 referendum is now law. Nor did he abide by the spirit of 2008 mayoral and gubernatorial elections. You shut your eyes to that evidence I already provided, of siccing Chavista mobs on opposition office holders. Here is more evidence.From Devil’s Excrement,”The Curious Case of Antonio Ledezma.” (type that into the search box at the top of the Devil’s website to bring it up.One needs to reduce links so postings do not get held up.)

Ever since his election last November as Mayor of the Metropolitan area of Caracas, Ledezma has become the most consistent and persistent political leader of the heterogenous opposition. He has obviously been helped by the way Hugo Chavez stripped him of most of his duties, responsabilities and funding. This whole affair has been so outrageous and undemocratic, that everyone can see that the votes of the people of Caracas were stolen by Chávez after the fact.

That does not indicate “respecting the results of elections.” Go ahead and repeat your mantra, “Chávez abides by election results, Chávez abides by election results, Chávez abides by election results.” An examination of the facts refutes your mantra. Go ahead and repeat it if it makes you feel good. The experience of Antonio Ledezma in office demonstrates otherwise. That what was rejected in the December 2007 referendum is now law demonstrates otherwise.

Given what has been happening recently with regards to the banks, your statement about “right-wing kleptocracy” contrasted with “left-wing authoritarianism” is a knee-slapper as Chavista kleptocracy has been amply documented. It’s not as if the kleptocracy were unknown before: look at landowning in Barinas and the fallout of Maletagate in Miami. See the first two links below for more information on the recent banking news.

Dilan Esper: I suggest you look up the very nice piece by Tina Rosenberg (a better reporter than your cited sources) in the New York Times Magazine. She documented the positives and negatives of Chavez very compared to his predecessors very effectively

This Tina Rosenberg article, “The Perils of Petrocracy”, appeared on November 4, 2007 in the NYT magazine. She discusses PDVSA involvement in the missions, an Chavista innovation to PDVSA. I agree with you that it is a well written article. What she writes supports my point of view.

But an oil boom might be expected to alleviate poverty. The real question is whether the gains will be sustainable. Weisbrot says he thinks they will. He points to the missions and figures there are gains in health and education that cash income doesn’t measure. But so far there is no sign of them: the percentage of those living without running water and living in inadequate housing, as well as the number of young children not attending school, has scarcely budged in the last 10 years. The percentage of babies born with low birth weights actually rose from 1999 to 2006. And this is according to government statistics.

(links not included to enable it to not get held up, but there I have provided enough information for it to be located.)Thank you for pointing me to an article that supports my point of view: that an examination of the facts shows a lot of holes in the claim that the Chavista government has helped the poor.

The Caracas Chronicles blogsite, at the top right of its website, has a good link. “First time visitor? Start here.” One article inside, “The petrostate that was and the petrostate that is”, points out that one change between the previous governments and the Chavista government was a change from having patronage directed institutionally through the two main political parties to having the patronage personally directed through Chávez. Still the petrostate.

Tina Rosenberg, in this July 2 2006 NYT article,“The Long, Hard Road of Investigative Reporting in Latin America”, definitely supports the view that Chávez is a dictator.

Venezuela criminalizes expression deemed disrespectful to public officials even if completely true.

Interesting you make no response to the problem I point out about “harmony” in Latin America: more countries do not accept the legitimacy of the recent elections in Honduras than do accept it.Given that Venezuela supplies us with oil, even with the devastation of PDVSA under Chávez’s control, we need to be very careful what we do and say with Venezuela. But it is Chávez who declared himself an enemy of the US, not the other way around. Since you brought up France, I might add that my opinion of France, an opinion based on contact with the French here in the US and in Latin America, changed in no way whatsoever as a result of what Chirac and Villepin did with regard to Iraq.

I cite facts to refute you, and document them. I do not recall any link you have provided to support your point of view, though you DID point me to Tina Rosenberg.Just reciting over and over mantras like “stupid right winger” in various forms or “Chavez abides by election results,” when there is ample documentation to contradict it, is not sufficient argument. That you would point me to an article that supports my point of view shows how little you know about the subject.

I need facts to be convinced, not mantras. There is no need to continue this discussion.

http://devilsexcrement.com/ banks

http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2009/12/venezuelan-banking-crisis-made-simple.html banks
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2009/06/red-shirts-are-busy.html attack on governor’s office

I suggest you look up the very nice piece by Tina Rosenberg (a better reporter than your cited sources) in the New York Times Magazine. She documented the positives and negatives of Chavez very compared to his predecessors very effectively.

It’s really not much different than Castro vs. Batista, except Chavez abides by election results. In both cases, you had right-wing kleptocracy give way to left-wing authoritarianism.

Personally, I’m a fan of Alan Garcia in Peru. Chavez really isn’t my cup of tea. But that doesn’t mean he is our enemy. We should have as few enemies as possible. Your approach is to define anyone who does anything the United States doesn’t like as an enemy. That approach leads to stupidity such as the push by the right wing to make France an enemy after the invasion of Iraq.

Dilan Esper: By your definition, the USSR was not our enemy in the cold war, which is absurd.The USSR was our enemy only in a metaphorical sense. The cold war, remember, was a metaphor, and metaphors aren’t reality, although conservatives seem to want to make them so.Look, simple minded right wingers get a hard-on every time they say the word “enemy”. But rational people don’t make enemies they don’t need to.Your thinking, and Gringo’s, will get Americans killed. Thankfully, our policymakers are smarter than you guys are.

Dilan, one problem is that you believe you know a lot more than you actually know. Here is the definition of “enemy” from websters-online-dictionary.

1. An opposing military force; “the enemy attacked at dawn”.
2. An armed adversary (especially a member of an opposing military force); “a soldier must be prepared to kill his enemies”.
3. Any hostile group of people; “he viewed lawyers as the real enemy”.
4. A personal enemy; “they had been political foes for years”.

By definition 3 or 4,Chávez is our enemy. Ditto was the Soviet Union. By and large I agreed with the conduct of the USG with relation to the Soviet Union. Yet during this time, while I and most others who took the trouble to consult the dictionary considered the Soviet Union the enemy, we did not go to war against the Soviet Union. Therefore your claim that my thinking will get Americans killed seems curious, at best.

While you do not consider Chávez our enemy, he does: refer to his “Yanqui de mierda” video. While he considers us the enemy, and acts accordingly, that does not necessarily mean we should necessarily respond in kind. Bush did not respond to Chávez’s outbursts, and that was most likely the correct thing to do. But there are definitely times to oppose him. For example, the US supports the results of the recent Honduran election. As you said the following, I assume that you do also.

Nothing wrong with the election. I wish the Hondurans well.

Aligned with the US at this time in supporting the results of the Honduran election are Canada, Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia. Aligned with Chávez against the results of the recent Honduran election are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Uruguay. While it is not “harmonious” to go against Chávez and his allies at this stage- all but Mexico in this group could be considered his allies- it is the right thing to do. After all, the elections were planned well before June 28. “Harmony” and doing the right thing do not always coincide.

You make unsupported statements such as “You need to stop making up stupid and ill-informed conspiracy theories about people you disagree with.” We find out that you do not know the definition of words, such as “enemy.” You make claims that are not supported by the facts: what you wrote about electricity in the slums of Caracas. Your claim that a “left-wing” government such as that of Chávez is “responsive to the poor” runs into some rather harsh realities. I suggest you check my posting at December 4@ 2:49 a.m. to give you a reality check. (For the health statistics, the base year was 1998, the year before Chávez took office. I made a mistake in writing “went from X to Y in 2006″ instead of “went from X in 1998 to Y in 2006.”)

If you knew you were winning the argument you wouldn’t have to result to insults such as “simple-minded,” “clueless”,”blubbering idiots,” say we “act like imbeciles,” etc.

The USSR was our enemy only in a metaphorical sense. The cold war, remember, was a metaphor, and metaphors aren’t reality, although conservatives seem to want to make them so.

Look, simple minded right wingers get a hard-on every time they say the word “enemy”. But rational people don’t make enemies they don’t need to.

Your thinking, and Gringo’s, will get Americans killed. Thankfully, our policymakers are smarter than you guys are.

You are overusing the term “enemy”. An enemy is an adverse combatant in wartime. You can say that Al Qeada, for instance, is our enemy (hence the term “enemy combatants”). Saddam was our enemy during each Gulf War.

What nonsense. Check Webster.

By your definition, the USSR was not our enemy in the cold war, which is absurd.

Chavez is our enemy. Only the left fails to understand that inconvenient truth.

Dilan Esper: The international “left” is concerned with making governments more responsive to the poor. Chavez, for all of his faults, replaced people who let the slums of Caracas fester without electricity.

The facts do not support your claim that before Chávez took office, the governments of Venezuela “let the slums of Caracas fester without electricity.”

From Access to Elelectricity in the House (Table 7.3 on page 69) we find out that in 1998 99% of urban households and 96% of all households had access to electricity in Venezuela.

For corroboration, we turn to the 2001 census:Hogares en viviendas familiares por tipo de vivienda,según tipo de artefacto y/o acceso a internet, censo 2001, which queries about the presence of various electricity consuming artifacts in the household. Of the 5,2432,88 households in Venezuela, we find out that 151,864 have none of the 13 artifacts, and 46,512 do not declare any, which total 3.7 % of the households. Which more or less agrees with the 96% access to electricity of the other study.

Contrary to what you claim, the slums of Caracas were pretty well supplied with electricity before Chávez took power. Certainly Chávez had support among the poor. But contrary to what you claim, it wasn’t for lack of electricity in the slums of Caracas. BTW, Chávez no longer wins the vote in the big Caracas slum of Petare.

(cut down to pass through filter.)

You are overusing the term “enemy”. An enemy is an adverse combatant in wartime. You can say that Al Qeada, for instance, is our enemy (hence the term “enemy combatants”). Saddam was our enemy during each Gulf War.

We are not at war with Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, or Bolivia. They are not our “enemies”. They may have unfriendly governments, or enact policies adverse to our interests, but they are not our enemies.

Because you are misusing the term “enemy”, you are making Chavez’s actions a lot worse than they are.

And you can say the same thing about the quotes in Gringo’s post. It has zero effect on the interests of America when Chavez praises a world leader we don’t like. So let him do it.

Dilan Esper: 1. Chavez isn’t a dictator. He has a number of dictatorial tendencies, but he also abided by the election results when the public rejected his constitutional reforms.

After he lost the December 2007 referendum, billboards saying “por ahora” (for now) appeared around Caracas. Chávez also said “por ahora” after his unsuccesful coup in 1992- for now he would accept that he lost.
Thugo set up a second referendum in February 2009.

Just reviewing, the referendum proposed by Hugo Chavez is essentially triply illegal:
1) We already voted on it, as clearly spelled in Title IX of the Venezuelan Constitution.
2) Article 193 of the Suffrage Law clearly says that there has to be a two year span between referenda. Given that we had a referendum to consider this same question on Dec. 2nd. 2007, then we have to wait until December 2nd. of this year.
3) Article 64 of the Constitution says that if you are 18 you have the right to vote, which means that once a date for the referendum is set, anyone that turns 18 before that date should be able to register. The regulations say that once the Electoral registry is open, it has to stay open for 30 days, which makes Chavez’ date of February 15th.simply impossible.

Your claim that he abided by the results of the December 2007 were correct “por ahora”- for a while.
Here is how he treats opposition candidates who win elections.

In November, Antonio Ledezma, a well-known opponent of the Venezuelan government, defeated President Hugo Chávez’s handpicked candidate for mayor of greater Caracas. It was a particularly bitter setback for Chávez, not just because city hall is such a prized post but because Ledezma is so reviled by the president and his backers.
But Ledezma, 53, was mistaken if he thought winning office would mean controlling a far-flung city apparatus. Armed supporters of the president, wearing the government’s trademark red T-shirts, took over city hall and three other vital government buildings. Incoming municipal officials found offices ransacked, computer equipment pilfered and vehicles missing.
The officials also said they discovered that former mayor Juan Barreto had hired thousands of hard-line Chávez supporters — not to work in city agencies but to proselytize for the president’s so-called Bolivarian revolution, serve as bodyguards to pro-government lawmakers and function as shock troops to intimidate Chávez’s foes.

BTW Chávez ,that “friend of the poor,” lost in Petare, a big slum.

If Chávez is not a dictator, then why is he so friendly with them? Yes , in this realpolitik world, one must deal with dictators- the US has diplomatic relations with dictators- but it is another thing to embrace them. Friends of a feather and all that .
Chávez on Saddam: -”…he’s a brother…”

Chávez on Mugabe: “You are and always will be a true freedom warrior.”

Ahmadinejad on Chávez: “I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chávez.”
Chávez on Qaddafi: “…a friend and brother.”

Chávez on Fidel Castr:o “I am only a soldier in this battle. Fidel is our president. If we had to name a president of the world with enough powers to set it right, it would be Fidel. I believe in one decade he could set the world right.”
Chavez on Bashar Al-Assad: “We have the same political vision.”
Chávez on Lukashenko: “Here, I’ve got a new friend and together we’ll form a team, a go-ahead team. I thank you, Alexander, for solidarity and we’ve come here to demonstrate our solidarity.”
This summer Thugo took a tour. Here is where he visited: Algeria, Libya ,Syria, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Qatar. Say no more. Also note the enemies of the US among that group.

In September 2008, Human Rights Watch’s Director for the Americas, Jose Maria Vivancos, was expelled from Venezuela. Not a dictator?

Not a dictator? Andate a Venezuela para probar, pues.(Get to Venezuela and find out.)

I have left links out so that it will get posted. Too many links, not accepted.

Dilan Esper: The international “left” is concerned with making governments more responsive to the poor. Chavez, for all of his faults, replaced people who let the slums of Caracas fester without electricity.

The facts do not support your claim that before Chávez, the governments of Venezuela “let the slums of Caracas fester without electricity.” Nor has Chávez been all that “responsive to the poor.”

From Access to Elelectricity in the House (Table 7.3 on page 69) we find out that in 1998 99% of urban households and 96% of all households had access to electricity in Venezuela.

For corroboration, we turn to the 2001 census:Hogares en viviendas familiares por tipo de vivienda,según tipo de artefacto y/o acceso a internet, censo 2001, which queries about the presence of various electricity consuming artifacts in the household. Of the 5,2432,88 households in Venezuela, we find out that 151,864 have none of the 13 artifacts, and 46,512 do not declare any, which total 3.7 % of the households. Which more or less agrees with the 96% access to electricity of the other study.

Contrary to what you claim, the slums of Caracas were pretty well supplied with electricity before Chávez took power. It would be helpful if on occasion you would take the time to learn something about a subject before you inform others how stupid and clueless they are regarding that subject.

There are a number of issues on which Thugo’s alleged “concern for the poor” does not translate into reality. Perhaps the most glaring issue here is the price of gasoline, which is about 15 cents US per gallon. This is not a subsidy for the poor, who cannot afford automobiles, but a subsidy for the better off who drive.

Another way that the Chávez government has subsidized the better off at the cost of the poor has been the multi-tiered exchange rate. Bolívares have traded on the open market at two to three times the official exchange rate. Until the cash crunch this year caused by the drop in the price of oil, Venezuelans who traveled abroad could purchase dollars at the official rate, resulting in many shopping trips. Today the official exchange rate is primarily used to reward friends of the regime.

Housing is another issue which shows that Chávez is not the friend of the poor he claims to be. When Chávez assumed power in 1999, Venezuela had a housing deficit. It was safe to assume that as Chávez was “concerned about the poor,” he would implement policies that would result in more housing construction. Unfortunately, housing construction under Chávez has been about half of what it was previously.

In ten years of the government of Hugo Chávez Frías, 1.5 housing units per 1000 inhabitants were built, while in the 1989-1998 period 3.33 housing units per 1000 inhabitants were built, and between 1979-1988 4.9 housing units per 1000 inhabitants were built.
En 10 años el gobierno de Hugo Chávez Frías efectuó 1,5 viviendas por 1.000 habitantes, mientras que en el período de 1989 a 1998 se generaron 3,33 viviendas por 1.000 habitantes y entre 1979 y 1988, 4,90 viviendas por cada 1.000 habitantes.

The figures are for public and private housing construction combined.

Another way the ten years of the Chávez government has hurt the poor has been the murder rate which is two-three times what it was in 1998. Who gets murdered more often? The poor in the slums. The murder rate in 1998, the year Chávez was elected – he took office in early 1999- was 19 per 100,000 . Today it is much higher. The Chávez government has stopped releasing murder figures to the UN, so the actual figure is debateable.
The current Wikipedia rate is 48 per 100,000, but I am sekptical about that because it was previously above 61 per 100,000. Some current sources put it above 60 per 100,000. In any event, the murder rate in Venezuela is much larger than it was, and it hurts the poor the most.

The vaunted health advances are not as great when the data is examined. This is from the World Bank Development Report online. Tuberculosis is about where it was: a wash. Some are better, some are worse. For example, while 92% of children aged 12-23 months were immunized for measles, in 2006 only 55% were. For Diptheria immunization for the same age group, immunizations increased from 62 % in 1998 ( 76% in 1997) to 73% in 2006. Children were previously not immunized for Hepatitus B3: in 2006 ,71% were.

Those who claim that Chávez has been a friend of the poor need to examine the record. Moreover, the poor will be hurt by the current water and electricity blackouts/shortages, and the ongoing collapse of banks looted by friends of Hugo. ( See http://devilsexcrement.com/ and links from there. Daniel and Caracas Chronicles are recommended.For insider detail: Caracas Gringo. He has a good posting on the electricity blackouts.)

There’s no reason the US shouldn’t deal with dictators anyway. We deal with them in many other parts of the world. You guys haven’t said ANYTHING that establishes that whatever the supposed threat that Chavez presents, it is worth jeopardizing hemispheric harmony to take him on.

I agree. The reasosn Chavez is a problem is his many anti-American policies and his clear ideological and political anti-American stance. He is a friend to all of our enemies, and hence he is an enemy. Simple concept – but hard for the left to understand.

Besides, how many times has the left condemned us for dealing with autocratic governments? The answer: every time they are anti-Communist.

1. Chavez isn’t a dictator. He has a number of dictatorial tendencies, but he also abided by the election results when the public rejected his constitutional reforms.

2. There’s no reason the US shouldn’t deal with dictators anyway. We deal with them in many other parts of the world. You guys haven’t said ANYTHING that establishes that whatever the supposed threat that Chavez presents, it is worth jeopardizing hemispheric harmony to take him on.

Chavez angers a lot of folks on the right. I get that. But pissing off the right wing does not equate to being a threat to US interests. The problem is that when it comes to socialist authoritarians, conservatives simply start acting like blubbering idiots who lose any sense of foreign policy realism.

This is complete crap. The international “left” is concerned with making governments more responsive to the poor. Chavez, for all of his faults, replaced people who let the slums of Caracas fester without electricity.

No, the useful fools for the international left are interested in that. The ones who actually take power (Castro, Chavez, and others) may engage in a little populist goodie give-away, but their main theme is personal power.

In the meantime, because their ideology is failed, they wreck their economies and infrastructure.

And, of course, the are perfectly happy to create buddies in other countries, wrecking more places.

Chavez, for all his faults, is a strong-man reaching for dictatorship.

If our relationship with Colombia were truly important, this would be a concern. (And no, narcotics trafficking doesn’t count– we’d be better off if we didn’t worry so much about this.)

There is cooperation on international crime, such as drugs, money-laundering.

Then I guess we shouldn’t have relationships with China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Peru, the United Arab Emirates, or the aforementioned Colombia either, right?

I mean, you can draw up a bill of particulars against any foreign leader, Chavez included. But that doesn’t mean that these things pose serious threats.

Just for grins, if the balloon had gone up in Europe during the Cold War, one half of our supplies would have had to come from the Gulf ports through the Straits of Florida. That’s ninety miles wide and the resources needed to get the convoys through there would have had to be taken from the Third Battle of The North Atlantic. A chess piece here, one there, another some place else and somebody tells Brezhnev, “we can do it. we have the choke points and the strategic location”.

Just how paranoid are you?

I know the Cold War is over and we won–deal–so I use that only as an example of how what is clearly a threat can be obscured by the left. As is their goal today with other threats.

This is complete crap. The international “left” is concerned with making governments more responsive to the poor. Chavez, for all of his faults, replaced people who let the slums of Caracas fester without electricity.

You need to stop making up stupid and ill-informed conspiracy theories about people you disagree with. Chavez is no threat, and the American right is making complete asses of themselves over this issue.

It’s a stupid issue in 2 senses:

1. It doesn’t affect the US’ vital interests.

2. It drives the right wing to stupidity.

Since I enjoy seeing right wingers act like imbeciles, why shouldn’t I post?

Dilan Esper: if he were wrong, it’s not worth antagonizing an important oil supplier over a stupid issue.

Quote

If this is such a stupid issue, why are you writing so many comments about it?

Conservatives have never shown why Chavez or Castro or Ortega is such a threat that we have an imperative to oppose any government they might support. That leaves one with the conclusion that conservatives simply think that the US government should reflexively oppose anyone on the left, even if it runs counter to our interests in hemispheric harmony.

In other words, if you guys have an actual reason why who runs Honduras impacts vital US interests, you haven’t articulated it. All you guys have done is spew a bunch of bile about left-wing leaders you don’t like. Spewing bile is no substitute for actual foreign policy.

You guys really have to stop viewing foreign policy as a grand contest between left and right. The goal of foreign policy is to benefit the American people. If it benefits the American public that the hemisphere gets along (which it does), then the fact that the right wing is denied the orgasm it seeks by standing up to Chavez is not particularly relevant to our decision calculus.

You can view every issue in Latin America as the eternal struggle between the (apparently, to you) evil left and the valiant right, or you can figure out the best way for the region to coordinate activities and get along.

Even if your one-sided descriptions of Chavez, Castro, and Ortega were accurate, they are still in power, and it still benefits the people of the United States to deal with them.

Dilan Esper: BTW, it’s also worth noting that even if some of Chavez’s actions have come in for perfectly legitimate criticism, that doesn’t mean that everything he ever says is wrong or should be opposed. He happened to be right about this, and even if he were wrong, it’s not worth antagonizing an important oil supplier over a stupid issue.

If this is such a stupid issue, then why are YOU writing so many comments about it? Just wondering.

ArthurKirkland: The myopic focus some direct toward Chavez echoes the inexplicable preoccupation some exhibit with respect to Castro’s Cuba.

Myopic? No, our eyes are open. If Thugo Chávez had not been involved in the Zelaya drama in Honduras, he wouldn’t be mentioned. Courtesy of Venezuelan News and Views, which linked to The Vanguard, a Spanish paper.

Patricia Rodas, formerly Foreign Minister in Zelaya’s government, acknowledged before the Telesur (Venezuelan TV channel) microphones the determining role of Venezuela in the strategy that Zelaya followed. “A salute to our commander Hugo Chávez. Without him, without his support, this media coverage would not have been possible,” Rodas said.

Nicholas Maduro (Venezuelan Foreign Minister) was at Zelaya’s side all day. He traveled in the jeep that the deposed president drove from the Nicaraguan town of Estelí to the frontier. Friday they slept in Ocotal, Nicaragua.

Joaquin Villalobos, a former Salvadoran guerrilla commander, said that “the use of the Telesur channel for coordinating diplomacy with street fighting, the involvement of Venezuelan planes and pilots and calls for rebellion speak for themselves, Chavez needs dead Hondurans.”

Patricia Rodas, ex ministra de Exteriores del gobierno de Zelaya, reconoció ante los micrófonos de Telesur el papel determinante de Venezuela en la estrategia que sigue Zelaya. “Un saludo a nuestro comandante Hugo Chávez. Sin él, sin su apoyo, esta repercusión mediática no habría sido posible”, dijo Rodas.

Nicolás Maduro estuvo al lado de Zelaya todo el día. Viajaba en el jeep que, manejado por el presidente depuesto, los condujo desde la ciudad nicaragüense de Estelí a la frontera. El viernes durmieron juntos en Ocotal.

Joaquín Villalobos, ex comandante de la guerrilla salvadoreña, señala que “el uso de la cadena Telesur para coordinar diplomacia con lucha callejera, el involucramiento de aviones y pilotos venezolanos y los llamados a la rebelión hablan por sí mismos; Chávez necesita hondureños muertos”.

Changing the Constitution and enabling repeated elections: just what Chávez did. Just what Daniel Ortega is now attempting.

Since you know so much about Cuba,I’m sure the information in Renaissance and Decay is old hat to you.

Granted, Thugo has become progressively less involved as time went on, as it became increasingly clear he was backing a losing horse. But only the blind will maintain Thugo had nothing to do with the drama the last 6 months in Honduras- especially with the initial idea of the referendum.

I admit to more interest in Venezuela than the average gringo. I worked in Venezuela many moons ago. I was neutral about Chávez until I met some Venezuelans at my workplace here in the US.

And you are quite copacetic with Ahmadinejad’s recent forays to South America?

It is easy and proper to discount the arguments of those who rail against Chavez while ignoring the recent Central and South American regimes at least as bad as the Chavez government — some of whose brutality has been supported, openly or covertly, by Americans in and out of government — just as it is easy and proper to dismiss the claims of those who assert that Cuba is a great threat to the United States or the worst country on Earth.

A clear-headed ranking of enemies, threats and abuses is important, as recent events in Iraq have demonstrated.

Dilan Esper: No reply to this, Dilan Esper?I didn’t think it merited one– I don’t think that when you have a unanimous regional reaction, “who came first” is a particularly relevant question. The bottom line is that had Obama not condemned the coup, he would have been the only leader in the entire hemisphere not to– even the conservatives condemned it. Whether Chavez tipped over the first domino is irrelevant.BTW, it’s also worth noting that even if some of Chavez’s actions have come in for perfectly legitimate criticism, that doesn’t mean that everything he ever says is wrong or should be opposed.

Thugo Chavez led an unsuccessful coup in 1992 against a democratically elected government. He celebrates the coup attempt every year. So he is “right” this time when he condemns a “coup?” Yeah, right.

Zelaya was deposed for violating the Constitution. For Thugo, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. His Supreme Court has as much gravity as the Three Stooges. Ditto his legislature. Thugo’s Supreme Court and Legislature would no more oppose him than a five year old would win the heavyweight boxing championship.

The Castro brothers led an unsuccessful coup in 1953, and have held totalitarian power in Cuba for a half century. They condemn the “coup” in Honduras. Good democratic people to have on your side.

Then there is Daniel Ortega. Ortega took power by military force, which could be justified by its being against the dictator Somoza. However, once in power, Ortega and the Sandinistas were anything but aficionados of democracy. Example: Nicaragua endorsed the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan back in March 1980. Also note Ortega, like Zelaya, has tried to change his country’s Constitution to enable indefinite reelection. Just like the Somozas.

It doesn’t make you uncomfortable to have such goons on your side?
Guess not.
Regarding “unanimous regional reaction,” it is of note that the regional reaction to the election is anything but unanimous.

Dilan Esper: He happened to be right about this, and even if he were wrong, it’s not worth antagonizing an important oil supplier over a stupid issue.

So much for speaking truth to power. Your point about not wanting to antagonize Thugo also gives support to my previous statement:

An alternative explanation is that Chávez had his ALBA people lined up, and the other governments in Latin America were reluctant to take a stand against Chávez, because standing up to Chávez results in suitcases of money being channeled to left-wing forces in the country.

Perhaps all’s well that ends well. But if Honduras had not stood up to regional bullying- I have already documented the different stances that the OAS had towards Cuba and Honduras- things could have turned out a lot worse.

I didn’t think it merited one– I don’t think that when you have a unanimous regional reaction, “who came first” is a particularly relevant question. The bottom line is that had Obama not condemned the coup, he would have been the only leader in the entire hemisphere not to– even the conservatives condemned it. Whether Chavez tipped over the first domino is irrelevant.

BTW, it’s also worth noting that even if some of Chavez’s actions have come in for perfectly legitimate criticism, that doesn’t mean that everything he ever says is wrong or should be opposed. He happened to be right about this, and even if he were wrong, it’s not worth antagonizing an important oil supplier over a stupid issue.

Letting Zelaya serve out his term would have been expressively un-constitutional,

.