"Push by ChÃ¡vez to Abandon Term Limits on Presidency Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
By SIMON ROMERO (NY Times) Published: August 16, 2007 CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug. 15 ï¿½?? President Hugo ChÃ¡vez outlined a proposed overhaul to the Constitution on Wednesday night that would allow him to remain in power indefinitely through perpetual re-elections, an intensification of his efforts to assert greater state control over political and economic institutions.
Jorge Silva/Reuters President Hugo ChÃ¡vez brandished a copy of Venezuelaï¿½??s Constitution Wednesday as he opened a speech urging some changes. Taking aim at opponents who say he is assuming too much power, Mr. ChÃ¡vez said, ï¿½??I recommend they take a pill, what do they call it, a Valium.ï¿½?? During a meandering, theatrical speech at the National Assembly here, he said, ï¿½??We have broken the chains of the old hegemonic oligarchy.ï¿½??
But he's such a nice man and Bush is El Diablo...he smelled the sulfer at the UN himself!!
What is funny about this situation is that we ALL saw it coming. Be it neo-libs, socialists, authoritarians, whatever, it's like we've already read the book and can call out every single move they make years before they do it. But hey, Chavez said that even with these changes he didn't intend to stay in power forever. snicker And besides, he would still have to be elected each time. laugh How many years do you think before the CIA leads a revolt? I'd volunteer for that one in a heartbeat.
I am as appalled by this as the rest of you guys, but are you being serious when you call for overthrowing a democratically elected guy who has more than twice the approval rate of your president?
Do you want to protect the Venezuelans against themselves? Do you know better than them? If someone tries to cut his leg (for whatever reason), will you beat the crap out of him just so that he doesn't do it?
I seriously question your basic understanding of liberty at this point.
I don't think I made myself sufficiently clear. In two years Bush will leave, and to that I say good riddance. At this point in time, Venezuela got what they voted for. If they keep voting him in, then to hell with them. I'm not for overthrowing Chavez...at this time. I am for overthrowing him when he refuses to leave and must subjugate his people in order to remain in power. This is certain to happen. What we will see is the democratic process destroyed to where he is "re-elected" every time, much the way Saddam claimed to have been elected with 100% of the vote AND 100% of the citizens voting. I have no idea why he thought we'd buy that, but Chavez will do the same. For his sake, let's hope he's a little craftier with the numbers. At that time, I'd be willing to volunteer to kick him out. My apologies for the confusion.
Another thing to mention is that inalienable rights are just that. A democratically elected leader has no right to deny them to his people no matter how popular he is. If George Bush, with the unanimous consent of congress decided to re-institute slavery you can bet your ass I wouldn't say it was okay, democratically elected representatives or no. I'd be calling for revolution.
I'm behind you on that one if you poison him or something. If bombing the country to oblivion is what you have in mind, count me out.
You'll have to lend me that functioning crystal ball of yours. I broke mine doing pullovers. Damn you sweaty hands!
Allow me to be the first to coin the term preemptive coup. What? It's been done before? Oh well...
I am dully impressed by your commitment to helping others aspire to a more democratic tomorrow, but here's what I don't get: I could cite you a dozen countries (from memory) with presidents that get over 90% of the vote. All of them are ruled by merciless tyrants and have been under their rule since last century. Their countries have no free press and everyone that speaks up is brutally silenced. I could also detail to you the horrors that happen under some modern absolute monarchies (some of which I witnessed firsthand). This has been going on under your nose and your government is good pals with them.
Yet, all I hear is talk about how Chavez is evil and must go. Somehow, that doesn't add up in my tiny brain. Oh, wait...could that be because he's not letting you suck his country dry while the "established dictators" do? Hmmm...
He might. But technically, so might Bush.
I don't wanna sound like I'm supporting Chavez, but you're forgetting that he's a Bolivarian. I believe in his good faith. Venezuelan elections are held under international observers, and I don't think Chavez will ever change that. But I have been wrong before...
Once again, I salute your zeal. You seem to be very intolerant when it comes to illegitimate rulers. I assure you, this is not sarcasm. I am very much the same way. My motto is Res Publica Non Dominetur.
But I see a little flaw in your reasoning and it probably stems from the implementation of your political system you know best. What if Mr. Chavez decides to take away an inalienable right, holds a referendum, and the people vote in favor of the president's proposal?
Blowing up planes kills lives, but does not threaten the sovereignty of a country. Lying to the public to invade countries, then not listening to the populace when it tells you to get out might threaten the sovereignty of a country.
Missiles? Yeah, right! The last missile fired at the US was in...no it wasn't.
Suicide missions as we know them today, are not supported or condoned by any country on the globe. And no, "the occupied territories" isn't a country. Of course, instead of trying to fix that issue, the US invaded Iraq which turned the latter into a breeding ground for suicide bombers. Whether they didn't see it coming or did it on purpose could be debated.
And nukes aren't something you use. It's strictly for deterrence.
Sorry, pookie, seems pretty clear the points being made.
You say leave them alone unless they are threatening mainland invasion. g dol chimes in connecting Iraq to this.
I respond with sarcasm pointing out that there are many ways for hostiles to hurt us BESIDES mainland invasion. Further, I don't think ANYONE thought saddam was going to INVADE the U.S. However, most of us felt he WAS going to disseminate bad things to bad people. This would have led to unacceptable risks to our homeland security.
Therefore, all is clear. Your verbal diarrhea after the fact doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
If you pay enough people to risk their lives or kill, some will do it.
When you are close to a Ferrari per signing (and you are with firms like Blackwater) it hardly is a sign for support for the war, this president or his policies it is the second coming of an ugly phenomenon.
Yes, there is that reason of course. But I think the most worrisome thing for Washington here is the successful defiance Venezuela has been exhibiting. That has been spreading fast across the continent as illustrated by the leftist wave that swooped the 2006 elections in most countries.
Chavez is a threat because he inspires others. They supported a coup once and I have no doubt doing it again is seriously discussed in the White House.
Chavez = Good? Not by a long shot. The people want him and that is all that counts.