Mark Penn might try out this new sound bite for Hillary Clinton: "Ready to lie from Day 1."
Exhibit A, as noted in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal: this week she claimed that Venezuela is a dictatorship.
The Journal reports:
In a major speech yesterday at George Washington University, Sen. Clinton drove the wedge [with Sen. Obama] deeper: "If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries. But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions; until we have assessed, through lower-level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators."
So, according to Senator Hillary Clinton, the leader of Venezuela is a dictator.
It's hard to imagine that Hillary is so uninformed -- and has such incompetent foreign policy advisers -- that she doesn't know that President Hugo Chávez and his government have won multiple elections that were characterized as free and fair by international observers. But if she knows this, then she is lying.
For example, this is what the Carter Center delegation said about the 2004 presidential recall referendum:
"On Aug. 15, 2004, Venezuelans came out in record numbers to participate in the first popularly mandated presidential recall referendum ever to be held. In doing so, the Venezuelan people voted not to recall President Chávez from office, with 59 percent of the population voting for Chávez and 41 percent voting against him. It is the opinion of The Carter Center that the Aug. 15 vote clearly expressed the will of the Venezuelan electorate."
Indeed, here's what the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs wrote last October about the elections in 1998 and 1999 - this is on the State Department's web page:
"In December 1998, Hugo Chávez Frias won the presidency on a campaign for broad reform, constitutional change, and a crackdown on corruption...Chávez's argument that the existing political system had become isolated from the people won broad acceptance, particularly among Venezuela's poorest classes, who had seen a significant decline in their living standards over the previous decade and a half. The National Constituent Assembly (ANC), consisting of 131 elected individuals, convened in August 1999 to begin rewriting the Constitution. In free elections, voters gave all but six seats to persons associated with the Chávez movement. Venezuelans approved the ANC's draft in a national referendum on December 15, 1999."
On January 31 of this year, the Miami Heraldreported,
"Human Rights Watch on Thursday said Venezuela does not belong to a group of nations like Pakistan and Russia that use the veneer of democracy to mask autocratic rule...'We did not include Venezuela in the list of closed countries because it is not,' Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said, unveiling the organization's 2008 World Report, which highlighted leaders who claim to be democratic but take autocratic measures...'There are serious problems in Venezuela, but we shouldn't pretend that Venezuela is a closed society,' he said. 'There still is significant political competition, and indeed the best evidence of that was the fact that Chávez just lost his referendum.' "
You're entitled to your own opinion, Senator Clinton, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The leader of Venezuela Has on numerous occasions attempted to start restrictions on the media which would allow him to suppress political content. The leader of Venezuela Publicly supports The Farc which is a known terrorist group. The leader of Venezuela has attepted to extend his rule indefinately, and Hugo Chavez isn't a dictator?! Do us a favor, read a book and write something educated. You are entitled to your own opinion Robert Naiman, but you are not entitled to respectively write uneducated, pro-terrorist articles.
The article states that: "Its hard to imagine Hillary as so uninformed" NO IT'S NOT !!! Didnt she say from when she voted for the Iraq War, that she never even so much as read the Bill put to the Senate? How informed about her big time campaign contributer MONSANTO's activities and products is she? I am not saying that Obama is much better. (Well he is better informed) Both plan to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq (while claiming quick withdrawal). Both are big defenders of Corporate control of America too. ..... We would do well to remember that: "The lesser of evils - is still evil." And that until we support or insist on the "right person for the job" as opposed to - " the one that will do the least amount of damage", as a nation we are still headed for the road to hell, a police state, and the status of Most Hated Nation. By the way... has anyone asked in any of the candidates, what either of them will do to roll back all those power excesses that the present Bush administration has stolen for itself? Has either of the Candidates freely volunteered this information???? I thought not!
The leader of Venezuela Has on numerous occasions attempted to start restrictions on the media which would allow him to suppress political content. The leader of Venezuela Publicly supports The Farc which is a known terrorist group. The leader of Venezuela has attepted to extend his rule indefinately, and Hugo Chavez isn't a dictator?! Do us a favor, read a book and write something educated. You are entitled to your own opinion Robert Naiman, but you are not entitled to respectively write uneducated, pro-terrorist articles.
Chavez showed his true colors when he started seizing private assets, such as farms, vehicles, business. And not all from the "rich". Price controls have lead to smuggling, which is leading to the seizure of homes, farms and businesses from the middle class and poor.
Chavez announced his intentions to control the country for his lifetime. He may not be running a dictatorship, but he is certainly showing himself a dictator!
Semper fi
I agree. And I think Senator Clinton is correct in her assessment of Chavez.
I dislike Hillary intensely. But, perhaps you could go back into your post and underline the word dictatorship in her remarks?! I just can't find it. I know my eyes aren't what they used to be, so I probably am just not seeing it!!?
She said adversary. You won't find dictatorship in the thesaurus under adversary.
Semper fi
I'm sorry, I thought the logic of Hillary's statement was obvious. I guess you can't assume anything.
There are two sentences in the Hillary quote, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The second sentence is:
"But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions; until we have assessed, through lower-level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators."
Clearly, the last two words, "these dictators," refer to the phrase, "the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba." Therefore, Hillary is calling the leader of Venezuela a dictator, and thus she is characterizing Venezuela as a dictatorship.
Unless we accept the notion that we are free to use the word "dictator" as an insult regardless of objective reality, then accusing someone of being a dictator implies that they possess the power of a dictator, in other words, that the country they lead is a dictatorship.
Otherwise, one would be just as justified in saying that Bush is a dictator.
Dontcha just love it when someone who obviously did not read the post, rambles on about something that is totally wrong , then the AUTHOR HIMSELF logs on, hits these guys over the head with a sledgehammer, and you no longer see them posting? I know I do...
That's funny you've just realized that Bill and Hillary Clinton are the epitome of liars. They will say anything do anything just to win.
Although I disagree with Hillary on most issues, she is absolutely correct about lumping Chavez in with the other creeps. Chavez needs to be reminded (often, it seems) that he is in power at our grace. We can withdraw our sufferance of him any moment we choose.
In US politics, "dictator" means "leader who won't do as we say". This is an understanding by no means unique to Hilary Clinton. "Democracies" are nations that do what we want, whether or not their people like it, and "tyrants" are those who won't.
Which is why a treasonous military dictator like Pervez Musharef got to pretend he was the legitimate leader of a democracy, while Hugo Chavez gets called every name in the book.
Thankyou! Coulnd't have put it better!!!
another 'axis of evil?'
"Dictator" is just a newspeak code word for someone they don't like, in Chavez' case for putting the interests of his own human citizens ahead of foreign corporations. The US usually supports actual dictators. For example, Saudi Arabia, one of the least democratic countries in the entire world.
That's a good point. The US loves dictators, except when they don't. It really is a case of giving a wink to the neocons, since HRC is their (aspiring) stealth candidate. They should love HRC, they share so much in common. The US will continue to slime Chavez' for all of the obvious reasons, the most unforgivable being a refusal to be a lapdog to the americans.
Now you know why this dysfunctional couple has been so successful at conning the American people. She and her hubby lie with such ease, it is disturbing. now is the time to stop her from ever speaking for this country on anything important.
Hillary Clinton ready to start a war from day one. A great progressive democrat!
That's right. Chavez = Castro = Ahmadinejad = Bin Laden = Saddam Hussein = Hitler. Say it ten times fast and repeat. That sort of thinking NEVER gets us in trouble.
Does that mean that if she won the presidency by a majority she would also be a dictator? She would kill to have Hugos popularity. One has to wonder, could she have those kinds of numbers if she followed Hugos example? Just suppose, for giggles, the democratic candidate promised policies like Venezuela, could they live to tell about it? Highly populist, worker friendly, make corporations shoulder their share of tax revenues. Just call me a socialist but it would be refreshing!!!
Correction: That should have read, 'corporations shouldering their share of tax burden'.
It's a typical Imerialistic talk of Clintons.
She can say whatever she wants and it's ligal, but what Bill Clinton's gang had done in respect to some other countries were international law crimes.
[I accidentally clicked "post" instead of "preview" last time. This is the final version I had wanted to submit]
I could not agree more. In fact I was just writing a letter to this effect to someone else literally moments ago.
It is not only President Chavez won the election of 1998 and then was re-elected in 2000 and 2006 (56.2%, 60% and 62.9%, respectively). In 1999 a referendum was held which proposed constitutional reforms including the democratic process of recall of elected officials including the president, which passed with 72%. In 2004 this was put to the test in a presidential recall for which he won with 59%.
There are also other elections including in 2005 for the National Assembly to which the MVA (a pro-Chavez party) won 68% of the seats.
As you mentioned there have been international observers which have verified at different times the results, including the OAS and the Carter Center.
That which irks me the most about Senator Clinton is her constant references to reclaiming moral authority in the world, yet statements such as the one noted here on Venezuela are clearly either ill-informed or intentionally misleading. A world-view rooted in national chauvenism, mired in misinformation and outright ignorance, is not a good basis for moral authority.
But then another memory comes to mind from last night's debate. "Medvedeva....whatever" What can one say? The spirit of President Bush lives on, perhaps.
On a side note, the IMF reported in October 2007 that Venezuela was top amongst Latin American nations for its GDP growth rate, at 8% with a forecast for 2008 at 6% (still at the top of the list) (World Economic Outlook: Globalization and Inequity). The World Bank also reported that 92.9% of children are receiving primary education now. Awesome achievements when over half the population lived in poverty when Chavez came to power.
Loading comments…
Posted February 27, 2008 | 11:17 PM (EST)