http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/31/chavez.cardinal.ap/index.html Is the left's favorite "democrat" possessed? -- Cardinal: Chavez needs 'exorcism' BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- An outspoken Catholic cardinal took his war of words with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to a new level in an interview published Sunday, calling him "a paranoid dictator" who needs "an exorcism." Rosalio Castillo, Venezuela's only cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, also accused Chavez of rounding up more than 100 political prisoners and torturing some captives. "There is no democracy here (in Venezuela)," Castillo told Colombia's main newspaper, El Tiempo. "This is a despotic government." Chavez, who insists he supports democracy, is up for re-election next year, and recent polls suggest he is strongly favored to win. Earlier this month, Castillo warned that Chavez was gaining too much power and becoming a dictator. Chavez, in turn, called Castillo "a bandit" who "has the devil inside him." In Sunday's interview, Castillo said his comments on Chavez are not personal, and said they fall in line with the opinions of other church leaders in Venezuela. "The difference is in the way it's said. There are those who speak diplomatically, and others like me who speak clearly so that everyone understands," the 82-year-old cardinal said. The Roman Catholic Church has been one of the most critical voices of Chavez, a former paratroop commander and self-styled "revolutionary." The church is also one of the most trusted institutions in the poverty-stricken South American nation. More than 90 percent of Venezuela's population is Roman Catholic, and church leaders and local priests wield tremendous influence over many of its citizens. Asked whether he would send a blessing to Chavez, Castillo said: "More than a blessing, I'd give him an exorcism."
It is odd that the cardinal would say there is no democracy, while the polls suggest Chavez enjoys popular support. I guess the Bush administration aren't the only people that don't count democracies as democracies unless they like the elected leaders.
I'm willing to overlook basso's cute strawman here because I agree that Chavez is a piece of **** who needs to be toppled ASAP. Anybody who arrests political enemies is not the president of a "democracy".
Even if the political enemies have been trying to foment a violent coup? I assume you are aware of the recent coup attempt by Chavez's political enemies? As seen in Venezuela, Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Haiti and other countries many American conservatives clearly do not believe in believe in democracy if it fails to elect conservatives. There is an excellent chance that much of what we hear in the mainstream press about Venezuela is just another lie, sort of like the Judith Miller's reporting and the other falsehoods we saw reported about Iraq prior to the war. Venezuela has oil and the neocons don't like its government.
Do you really think that Judith Miller was part of some conservative plot to lie? I've read her books and followed her writings for the NYT, and while she clearly was wrong about many things, she wasn't some Donald Rumsfeld ideologue, but rather one of the best and most journalistically principled reporters I’ve read. Quite frankly I find that insinuation which are clearly made for ideological reasons regarding your beliefs surrounding press manipulation to be offensive. Before Iraq had you even heard of Judith Miller? Back on topic, much of the American “concern” surrounding the idea that Chavez would use democracy as a tool to erode democracy is based on irrational reactions to recent Venezuelan friendliness towards the great boogieman Castro. The idea that democracy could be used to setup an anti-democratic government isn’t an unrealistic concept in theory. I think, perhaps, that the US is interpreting a bit based on irrational fear, while some is probably legitimate, and some actually “strategic misinformation” designed to promote a change in government to a group more willing to be raped by US oil conglomerates.
Well; I guess we have different standareds if Judith Miller is "one of the best and most journalistically principled reporters" you've read. Go ahead and be insulted if you must. I believe at at best the American press was gutless and went along to get along. Did they help in the manipulation? I would say they probably did so to get along. They thought it would be good for the bottom line. They do take economics into account. As far as Miller, the NYT is disgracing itself. She shold be fired for incompetence, dishonesty or lack of journalistic standards (fooled by Chalabi and not sticking to standards to use CIA and State Dept conclusiions that he was unreliable). It looks like we largely agree on Chavez. So why so skeptical about the Chavez, but so trusting on the pre-war buildup to the Iraq war reporting?
A way to keep up on Judith Miller's journalistic standards. ******** Arianna Huffington 07.31.2005 Arianna Huffington The Judy File Ever since I started blogging about Judy Miller's role in Plamegate (and in the selling of the war in Iraq), I've been showered with tips and tidbits about the jailed reporter, whom one e-mailer from Sag Harbor ("her summer hometown") archly referred to as "the amazing Ms. Miller, intrepid girl reporter." And since I spent the weekend in the vicinity of her summer hometown, some of what I heard was delivered by people who know her well. Together all these pieces of information now comprise my newly labeled -- and ever-expanding -- Judy File. A recurring theme in many of the conversations and e-mails is how Judy, to the dismay of many of her colleagues, never played by the same rules and standards as other reporters. One source e-mailed to give me some examples of this pattern: "In Feb 2003, Judy was in Salahuddin covering the Iraqi opposition conclave. Iraqi National Congress spokesperson Zaab Sethna told a reporter who was also there that Judy was staying with Chalabi's group in Salahuddin (the rest of the reporters had to stay 30 minutes away in crappy hotels in Irbil), and that the I.N.C. had provided her with a car and a translator (Did the New York Times reimburse them?). The I.N.C. offered another reporter the same, but he turned it down. Judy had just arrived in a bus convoy from Turkey, big footing C.J. Chivers, who was also there covering the story for the Times. While everyone else on the buses had to scramble for accommodations, she was staying in a luxurious villa loaned to the I.N.C. by the Kurdish Democratic Party... "Two years earlier, she was on assignment in Paris for the Times and conducted her reporting out of the ambassador's personal residence, where she was staying. Felix Rohatyn, the ambassador at the time, was out of town, but it would be interesting to know whether the Times reimbursed U.S. taxpayers for the use of the embassy while she was there on assignment. What is certain is that the Paris bureau was buzzing about this at the time, as getting too close to sources or accepting hospitality -- accommodations, meals -- is a violation of the Times's ethical standards. The feeling was that somehow Judy was able to do whatever she wanted." .... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/the-judy-file_4933.html
I'm curious glynch, how do you explain away Chavez obvious, and documented thuggery against political opponents?
There is no excuse for heavy handed burtality against non-violent opponents. However some of the supposed thuggery does come against those who have already tried once to use a military coup to overthrow him. I wonder how you can explain away a U.S. backed coup to overthrow a democratically elected leader?
basso, I am curious as a fan of the Patriot Act. Gitmo etc. , which are in response to 9/11, don't you think that a democracy, i.e., Venezuela, (sorry if you don't like how the last several votes have turned out) has the right to protect itself against violent revoloution? I am also curious whether you realize that if we had a similar failed coup in the US some of the plotters would undoubtedly be put in jail. I would advocate that they be given trials with full criminal procedural rights. I assume you would advocate Gitmo style indefinite holdings with little or no trials or procedures per your leader, Bush. Don't you see how when you advocate undemocratic procedures and violations of civil rights both at home and abroad it gives you reduced credibility for attacking any such violations by Chavez?
Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government. --John Kerry, March 23, 2004
He has been elected over and over again and has never even threatened to suspend elections or make the process in any way un-Democratic. He may have leftist leanings, but if that is the person who the people want to lead them, that is their choice and we should butt out.
old, but on point: http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005478 -- Beware of Fidel's Mini-Me Venezuelans have a chance to head off Cuban style repression in today's recall election. BY MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY Sunday, August 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT If passions among Venezuela's opposition seem extreme in the run-up to today's recall referendum on President Hugo Chavez, it is not without good reason. From his presidential bully pulpit, Mr. Chavez virulently rails against the U.S. as an international menace, sympathizes with Middle Eastern militancy and, most frightening for Venezuelans, dreams of making his country into another Cuba. The process of Cubanizing Venezuela is well underway. As noted here last week there is a lot of worry about the potential for government fraud in the recall vote. Those concerns have increased as Mr. Chavez has sharply limited the number of international election observers allowed in the county. He is also harassing Sumate, an important Venezuelan civic group, seeking to monitor the vote. Of course, there will be other "observers." As Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer noted on last week: "Among the 98 personalities [Mr. Chavez] has invited to 'monitor' the election is Hebe de Bonafini, the leader of the ultra-leftist wing of Argentina's Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a self-proclaimed human rights activist who in 2001 publicly expressed her 'happiness' about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States." Ms. de Bonafini, it is worth noting, is a strong supporter and close political ally of Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, who recently returned from hobnobbing with Mr. Chavez at a trade fair on Venezuela's Margarita Island and whose government has refused to condemn Cuba's human rights record at the U.N. Mr. Chavez seems to also inspire Bolivia's militant left and Colombia's Marxist guerrillas. That the Venezuelan president, flush with oil income, aspires to be Fidel's mini-me on the South American continent is chilling. In an essay submitted for publication in Spain's ABC newspaper by Oswaldo Paya, the leader of the Varela Project--a grass-roots movement in Cuba calling for elections, free speech and private property--reminds us, with grisly detail, of what Venezuelans have to fear. Mr. Paya writes of his fellow Cubans: "Jose Daniel Ferrer, Leonel Grave de Peralta, Normando Hernández Gonzalez and Diosdado Gonzalez Marrero, are all prisoners of conscience. The first three were very active in the Varela Project and today, August 8, they have spent seventy-three days in individual punishment cells." These "punishment cells" are a step down from "normal cells," Mr. Paya explains. A normal cell is "1.8 by 3 meters with a door often sealed, lots of mosquitoes, sometimes rats, a bed made of cement, and at the same level, emerging from the wall, a plumbing outlet, barely a few centimeters from the latrine." Imagine then, the punishment cell. "In order to do this, the reader should enter a closet with dimensions less than the "normal" cell, leaving only a crack to breathe through and listen to the threats and insults from your jailers. In just a few hours all the bones in your body will be aching. This takes place in Pinar del Río, Cuba, at Prisón del Kilometro Cinco y Medio, a prison sadly notorious for its cruelty." But it is not only such confinement that Mr. Paya describes as disgracefully inhumane--it is also securing one's daily bread if you are an ordinary Cuban. "The police do not search for arms or explosives but rather for coffee, fish, cheese, rice; any product can be confiscated or stolen without any recourse, except a fine or a beating if the detained dares to demand the return of their confiscated items that in many cases wind up in the homes of the impounding police. . . . "The situation of repression becomes even worse the greater the privileges of the hierarchy, who now are the new and only employers, the 'managers' of a country where they persecute an elderly widow for selling pastries. The expectations of the future about Cuban government policies are of 'squeezing harder.' Which in good Cuban lingo means more repression and more oppression." There are eerie parallels--though clearly more extreme in Cuba--to the maltreatment of Venezuelans who signed the petition calling for this Sunday's recall vote. "Cuban State Security has presently unleashed throughout the entire country a repressive wave against the Varela Project," Mr. Paya writes. "It's agents are visiting one by one the 25,000 signers of the Varela Project, whose contact information they know since we turned in the petition with their information and signatures to the National Assembly of Popular Power. They are threatened. They try to force them to recant and some are fired from their jobs. State Security has distributed lists among the Committees in Defense of the Revolution (CDR) to keep them under surveillance and maintain a file on these citizens who while in the exercise of their constitutional right made this citizen's petition for a referendum." Last week too, dissident Vladimiro Roca, the son of the late Cuban communist party hero Blas Roca, echoed Mr. Paya's indictment. In a message to the European Union, Mr. Roca warned that Castro is trying to give the impression of tolerance by letting some seriously ill prisoners go home. The goal, Mr. Roca says, is to get the EU to resume economic assistance to the island and to sharply limit dissident access to European embassies in Havana. Yet, as he points out, these gravely ill prisoners have not had their sentences commuted. They continue under house detention. All 75 prisoners arrested in the March 2003 crackdown against peaceful dissent remain prisoners. Mr. Roca begs the EU and other countries not to ignore the Vienna Convention and not "to permit the Cuban government to continue with the massive violation of the human rights of the Cuban population." Over 300 Latin American congressmen and former heads of state signed a letter this month supporting the Cuban dissidents, condemning the repression and asking that their embassies in Havana be open to the oppressed. Such support, together with Europe's condemnation in recent years, suggests wide recognition and rejection of Castro's latest demonstration of brute power. Yet totalitarian temptations remain alive and well in the region, as the parallels between Cuba and Venezuela attest. Mr. Paya and Mr. Roca are doing their best to warn their neighbors across the Caribbean Sea of what Venezuela could become if Chavez isn't stopped. Ms. O'Grady is a senior editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal and editor of the "Americas," a weekly column that appears every Friday in the Journal and deals with politics, economics and business in Latin America and Canada.
Definitely on topic, but there is very little point to it. Instead of facts and points the majority of this article was trying to place guilt by association. The recall was monitored irregularities were noted, and the conlusion was that even without irregularities in favor of Chavez he would have won the vote anyway. Polls again show him to be favored to win the next election. Polls can be wrong, but none of that changes the fact that he was democratically elected multiple times, and is entering into another election as the favorite.
Basso, I don't think this is really that true; certainly not in comparison to many of the regimes that Bush has backed. This brings up an important point. Though I backed Kerry over Bush , I don't believe everything he says is true, nor do I support him in all things. I think that Kerry was saying this in a futile attempt to appeal to the Bush loyalists. This is fruitless, to you loyal followers of Bush can do no wrong and should never be questioned.
