Comments on: First 100 Days: Obama and Chavez

By: Maria La Brava

Maria La Brava — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:59:24 +0000

This article is great. I think Bush was terrible in every sense, but on Africa and on deling with this idiot Chavez he was right on. The author is gutsy to give Bush any credit at this point in time but it is a fair thing to do. My sense is that Hillary and Co. will be really bad news for this crude despot in the making. It is important to ensure that those in the US like Oliver Stone and Sean Penn are outed for their support of this dangerous anti-USA character. Obama has his hands free to do as Peidro Burelli says. Ignore and help prosecute.

By: shame

shame — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:45:36 +0000

to bad chavez can’t exploit the resorces himself.

he called the chines and the russians to come exploit-it with him.

great way to stand up to the u.s.

huh gr8pop?

By: Dario A Posada

Dario A Posada — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:00:35 +0000

gr8pop – I believe you haven’t read the latest news regarding oil and Venezuela and how Chavez is wooing the international oil community once more to ‘rape’ the country as you put it. I agree with the policy of Bush and Uribe, in Colombia, of ignoring him. Nothing could hurt his ego more than being totally ignored. Venezuela is a rich oil country that has been ‘raped’ many times by many interests both internal and external. Venezuelans did see an opportunity for change with Chavez, but his sickening love for Bolívar, who he tries to imitate, derailed his revolution to the point that there is probably more corruption and waste now than ever before. However, Simon Bolívar was a great visionary and had his sights on the greater good for the countries he liberated. Chavez simply uses his name as a whip to justify his actions. There is no comparison between Bolivar and Chavez. The former was a great individual with ideas based on human values and strict desire for the good of the nations, all rooted in his catholic upbringing. The later is simple a buffoon and that is why GWB policy of ignoring him worked so well.

By: Tim Hafke (Amsterdam)

Tim Hafke (Amsterdam) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:46:41 +0000

Congratulations Mr. Burelli. I think we all feel into the trap of anti Bushism and lost track of the reality. Mr. Chavez was dangerous al along and will be much more now that oil prices have crashed. I worked in the oil industry in venezuela – for a multinational – 8 years ago and when i went back late last year I could not belive what I saw. They have destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg. So no eggs and no goose, poor Venezuelans who will suffer now.

By: Spooky

Spooky — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:04:00 +0000

Chavez seeks to maintain control over his country. No free press. No free voting system. State control over all business and natural resources.

This is why he gets on so well with Putin and Russia, which has exactly the same thing. And why Chavez will never be a friend to the USA.

Obama should go one step further then Bush. He shouldn’t ignore Chavez, he should ridicule him.

eg: “I have no time to respond to an unimportant dictator, especially one with no world influence”

By: Luis Rodriguez Torres

Luis Rodriguez Torres — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:04:23 +0000

You have written the truth.
But not all the truth.
The rest is more ominous.
Putin, Chavez, Ortega etc
are crypto-communists determined
to implant the Proletary Dictatorship
in Latinamerica.
Luis Rodriguez T.

By: Dan (South Carolina)

Dan (South Carolina) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:42:02 +0000

The compatability of Socialism and Democracy frequently escapes USAmericans because of the Communist-state stereotype which is widespread in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_ state). Contrary to the popular misconception, young democracies frequently elect Socialist governments.

I am cynical about the motives of any politician, but I do appreciate Chavez for being the standard bearer for the poor that he has been. And I can even sympathize with what I imagine are the motivations for the distasteful moves he has made toward totalitarianism. However, if he cares at all about Venezuelan Democracy, he needs to trust the people to do what’s right for themselves. If Venezuelans are going to really have a say in their government, they cannot allow one man take so much power. On the other hand, the “opposition” needs to trust the people too–no more coups or taking money from the Americans to fund their cause.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:33:53 +0000

Chavez is beginning to lose his glimmer because of t he drop in oil prices. He is the typical Caribbean strongman who sees himself as Castro’s succesor, even if Raul Castro is at the helm of Cuba. But rich Venezuelans and politicians are squarely to blame for Chavez because they filled their pockets with petrobolivares and neglected the poor, always a lighting rod for future soldiers-turned-dictators.

By: Dan (Dublin, Ireland)

Dan (Dublin, Ireland) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:39:54 +0000

I find it amazing that people still fall head over heels for mud-slinging and propaganda. Chavez may have his faults but in terms of being corrupt, he is leagues behind the likes of Dick Cheney and the US super-eilte.
People should wake up and look past these issues, and they might then be able to see beyond Chavez v America, or Chavez v the world! …what should be talked about is social justice v neo-liberal greed and hegemony.

Since when did the idea of 20% of the population controlling 80% of the wealth, become a good idea?
I’ll tell you… since the media ceased to be a free-press and became a corporate owned lapdog for neo-liberal globalisation. Look past the tiresome propaganda and focus on the real issues… because you can bet Barack Obama will be doing just that. Chavez is not Venezuela.

By: fractal

fractal — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:58:15 +0000

Although chavez connections with the guerillas are real, venezuelan reality is to be studied pragmatically. In the first place neither Chavez nor Obama count on each other existence to define themselves; neither did Bush defined chavez. He built his discourses around the figure of the devil itself, not Bush. And because institutions last longer than men, you should integrate in your piece the fact that global politicies are rarely determined by affection: above all not between the US and Venezuela who are interdependent. Attacking US institutions, with a bad guy representing them, is easier than to do so with a sympathetic man in the oval office. Obama is not Chavez’s end, it is only a change of face, a rebranding of America’s power. Attacking US will be diferent now. When people talked about a new set, it was only in a symbolic level. I find very disturbing that for yourselef, a change in the air is synonim of economic intervention, or other kind of intervention.
Castro has said he wants to talk to Obama. I don’t see where you recognize a white a black world, axed upon an evil side, in all this.
I completely agree in one point though. National venezuelan politics is quite interesting, beware of it. Perhaps one day shall we see a new face in power that acknoledges for example that venezuela is a drug highway and therefore, even without chavez’s support, the narco groups would still use it. This is how we must analyse venezuela today. The grey zone in venezuelan politics are not as clear as we think, dissident chavistas and anti democratic oppositores can assert this.