Chavez Says: “Go To Hell, Gringos!”
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez used three words that readers in emails have often aimed at yours truly:
President Hugo Chavez told U.S. officials to “Go to hell!” on his weekly radio and TV show Sunday for what he called unacceptable meddling after Washington raised concerns about a measure to grant Venezuela’s fiery leftist leader broad lawmaking powers.
Chavez is, in-effect, ascending to fill the role that Cuba’s dying and descending Fidel Castro once held. And with apparent gusto:
The National Assembly, which is controlled by the president’s political allies, is expected to give final approval this week to what it calls the “enabling law,” which would give Chavez the authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period.On Friday, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Chavez’s plans under the law “have caused us some concern.”
Chavez rejected Casey’s statement in his broadcast, saying: “Go to hell, gringos! Go home!”
Chavez, who was re-elected by a wide margin last month, has said he will enact sweeping reforms to remake Venezuela into a socialist state. Among his plans are nationalizing the main telecommunications company and the electricity and natural gas sectors.
The president’s opponents accuse him of using his political strength to expand his powers.
His statement underscores several realities. (1) The U.S. needs Venezuela (oil) more than it needed Cuba. (2) Chavez doesn’t feel seriously threatened by the U.S. and (3) Chavez will do what he wants to do and say what he wants to say (because the U.S. needs Venezuela to a certain extent and because he doesn’t feel seriously threatened by Washington).
27 Responses to “Chavez Says: “Go To Hell, Gringos!””
“President Hugo Chavez told U.S. officials to “Go to hell!â€? on his weekly radio and TV show Sunday for what he called unacceptable meddling after Washington raised concerns about a measure to grant Venezuela’s fiery leftist leader broad lawmaking powers.”
Well, this is exactly what Bush would say if Caracas interfered with the US democratic process like Washington does in Venezuela. And it isn’t as if Bush hasn’t tried to get broader lawmaking powers. Just a few days ago, GOP Senators stomped for an ammendment that would grant Bush a line item veto on bills. It’s not that he urgently needs that, since he already made clear with his signing statements that he doesn’t feels bound by laws. Hard to tell who’s the president with the higher authoritarian (if not despotic) approach, Bush or Chavez. But Bush clearly is the more powerful one.
The accusations against Chavez by the Bush administration borders the ridiculous.
“he doesn’t feel seriously threatened by Washington”
I wouldn’t say that. He doesn’t miss a chance to speak about the US involvement in the failed coup, and imho he does so to raise public awareness that there might be a second attempt. But, say what you will about Chavez, he’s got cojones. Of course, a lieutenant colonel with a 17 year carreer in the forces, including counter-insurgency experience, isn’t likely to be intimidated by some half baked first lieutenant weekend soldier of the national guard.
He calls it meddling for us to raise concerns about his latest policies? I think we’re quite right to raise concerns – he’s doing everything he can to consolidate power in his hands, and as we all know “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Our founding fathers were extremely worried about letting power concentrate in anybody’s hands, and that’s why they created so many checks and balances.
Chavez is dismantling any remaining checks and balances in Venezuela. Of course we’re going to speak out against it. It only becomes meddling if we start trying to force some sort of sanctions or talk about overthrowing him.
C, some truth, but where’s the difference to Bush? Honestly?
“He calls it meddling for us to raise concerns about his latest policies?”
The so called ‘concerns’ just triggered the response. The US has a well known, shameful record on meddling with Latim American democracies (and by ‘meddling’ I mean actively supporting (right wing) political parties, insurgency, even violent coups). Even after their involvement in the Venezuelan putsch attempt, the US still allocates money to ‘promote democracy in Venezuela’. Now, this might not be the best democracy in the world, but the US isn’t that, too. How would you think about, say, the Russians allocating money to ‘spread democracy in the US’? Wouldn’t you say this is a serious interference with a process that is totally your own business?
lol Gray, you’re one of the few people who are able to talk…
to themselves
so
much.
“lol Gray, you’re one of the few people who are able to talk…”
Hey, I was talking to ‘C’!
What’s your problem? Feeling disregarded?
The main problem here is that you and I are about the only ones already awake. Time zones are a nuissance! We need more European readers here!
Gray, I agree completely. Lynx lives in Spain, so I’m expecting her to comment soon as well.
That being said: yes, more Europeans needed!
Sure Gray…
What most Americans don’t realize is that our top 3 oil importers are Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. And of course Americans want to be negligent of that fact (especially when people tried to completely tie in oil and Iraq…they didn’t want to hear that the top 3 oil exporters to America are all in the same hemisphere).
When gas hit $3/gallon SUV and big truck sales plummetted. Now gas is under $2. I wonder how many Americans would drive a Hummer in the Southern states if they could affird one. If Chavez is so evil stop driving Hummers and Escalades. US consumers of oil and SUV’s could change alot if we were more responsible. This cosumerism could also affect the ME. Stop funding SA and Iran with our oil gluttony.
Chavez’s real problem is the plummeting price of oil. He developed his power base and strategic plans around a huge cash flow funding his programs from that oil back when it was $75+ and going up. He believed the hype of a permanent $100+ world oil economy, and now is starting to get starved for cash.
As with Castro in the 50′s, give him ten years of rule with no ability to grow his economy or develop new key economic activities (due to an understandable reluctance of capital to invest where the capriciousness of the ruling government could lose your entire investment at a whim), and then let’s talk about how powerful and influential he really is.
He is grabbing the dictatorial powers now, because in ten years even his own county won’t be so enamored with him, I am willing to bet.
C (#3),
I can understand why the Bush administration would be upset by this. It looks like Chavez is going Bush’s “Unitary Executive” one better. With Bush’s signing statements, repeal of Habaeus Corpus, removal of cases from the standard court system, warrantless wiretaps (not done yet, mark my words) and so one … Chavez and Bush look like they’re in a neck-and-neck race for Worst Executive of the last 60 years.
Whether your intent or not Michael your comment to Gray did ‘read‘ as quite condescending… Morning all!
Steve, I’m quite sure that Gray can cope with it: European sense of humor I presume.
Morning Steve! Good posts over there at Gilliards place, was fun, thx!
As for Michael – no problem. I’m used to receiving much heavier flak from the right side. His cheesy comments won’t hurt me (pun intended, Mike
)!
Heh. See?
Now a question? What posts? I don’t see a specific link?
“What posts? I don’t see a specific link?”
Oh, Stevek weighed in in a discussion about HDTV at Steve Giliard’s blog. A nice ‘tour de force’ across several highlights of technology that started as ‘against the grain’ hacks.
Gray, do you seriously equate a line item veto, which can still be overridden by congress, and has a number of other limitations, with a law granting the president the power to create laws by personal fiat? There is a redicously large chasm between the two. I agree that Bush is in favor of a level of power in the executive that hasn’t been seen in recent history, but please try to keep things in perspective. Just because Bush happens to be the leader of a larger nation doesn’t make him more evil.
Now, as to how I feel about a line item veto…. well I think it is a power desperately needed in this age of pork barel spending, and while I’m not crazy about Bush as being the first president to have the power for more than 2 months (as clinton did) I think the law is actually quite reasonable in the way this was constructed, giving the president line-item-veto powers only over spending measures, not matters of policy.
For example, as I understand it, he could veto a line giving $100mil to stem cell research, but he could not veto a bill which said existing federal funding mechanisms could now be used on stem cell research.
“Gray, do you seriously equate a line item veto, which can still be overridden by congress, and has a number of other limitations, with a law granting the president the power to create laws by personal fiat?”
Don’t forget that the Bush administration lawyers, among them Gonzalez, are standing firm by their reading that the president isn’t bound by any laws as commander in chief. Since the War on Terror can last forever, this is esentially a legal alibi for giving Bush dictatorical powers.
“a line item veto, which can still be overridden by congress”
By a constitutional majority! How often is the House this united???
“I think it is a power desperately needed in this age of pork barel spending”
That sounds positive at first sight. But where does it say that the president may only veto pork provisions? And what would keep the president from vetoing amendments that were necessary to get a bill through House and Senate, with Dem support, for instance? After a compromise has been reached, Bush may simply strike out that lines and the rest of the bill still standing isn’t at all what has been voted upon before. No, too many possiblities for the president to manipulate laws. Don’t mingle executive and legislative powers. Bad idea.
Btw, Clinton wanted the line item veto, too, he didn’t get it. Republicans were strictly aginst it. And there was not a majority in the GOP for this new power. Now, that the Dems are in control, republicans want that. Honi soit qui mal y pense…
Clinton did get the line item veto for a short while before it was challeneged, not by Republicans but a Democrat, and then overturned by what is agreuable a fairly liberal supreme court. Also, just to blow your mind Scalia actually dissented from the opinon declaring the veto unconstitutional. So much for evil conservative conspiracies.
Also, Show me where Gonzalez or anyone in the adminstration has said that Bush “isn’t bound by any laws as commander in chief”. Sure, they think the president should be given a stronger set of wartime powers, but the “Dictator Bush” meme is about as reasonable as the “Global Warming is a Liberal Conspiracy” meme.
I think that by exagerating the desires of the Bush administration you are not only clouding the current political debate, but also helpin legitamize and downplay the effects of the true dictators in the world who abuse and oppress their people.
Incredible! Thx for the info, Kevin. As for quotes, would you pls google Glenn Greenwald‘s site yourself? I’m sure they are there. Have to get myself something to eat now. CU later…
Oh, one more thing
There are tons of historical examples of congress overrideing presidental veto. And again, the nature of the veto isn’t policy related. This would not give him the power to veto pro-gay marriage laws or similar social mandates, but rather veto any single line of spending. Senators are people too, with their own egos/carrers, and if any president started eroding their powers of the purse I think you would see them unite very quickly.
“There are tons of historical examples of congress overrideing presidental veto.”
Historical ones, uh huh. When was the last time this happened?
Btw, you left me with the impression you’re interested in the ideology of lawlessness. Maybe needless to say, I stand by my opinion that the Bush administration is trying to make a case for absolute power of the CiC.
But now I rally have to get something to eat…
another quick google
BTW I disagree with just about every action the Bush adminstration has taken. I feel that our treatment of detainee’s is an open wound upon our good name, and that the war in Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the past 30-40 years. However, simply because I disagree with the Bush adminstration does not mean that I find it fair or remotely helpfull to demonize them.
Good Afternoon Gray!
FYI: I’m not the SteveK posting at Gilliards… Sagacious remarks attributed to me are often those of others. :>)
President Hugo Chavez is President of his country. The Bush Administration is into enough deep doodoo. Bush and his administration should stay out of every other countries business and attend to it’s own business. America!