"I Just Can't Wait To Be King" Hugo Chavez

I know you could *cough* me, but this isn't just about nationalizing some industries. This guy seriously wants to be king.

Chavez gets OK to approve laws by decree

And not only can he just implement laws from his throne but...

Chavez began his third term last week by announcing his intent to nationalize key sectors of the economy, rewrite the country's constitution to eliminate presidential term limits, and strip the Central Bank of its autonomy.

Note the middle bit. Re-write the constitution to eliminate term limits.

Sure, I'm not surprised that they want to just steal, I mean nationalize all of the foreign-owned oil industry in the country. That's almost a tradition now. But ladies and gents, what do we call "Ruling by decree without term limits"? I keep having the song from Lion King going through my head...I just can't wait to be King.

Well, I'd always thought we ought to be friends with Venezuela, seeing as it's more of a democracy than most of our other allies... But so much for that. F*ck the commie bastard.

El Presidente, your people are happy to do your will, and your bank account grows bigger by the moment!

Congratulations!

/Tropico narrator voice

Hugo writes decrees, Bush writes signing statements and executive orders.

Other than the difference in what you call them, they both bypass the legislative process, so I don't see why this is a big deal.

Farscry wrote:

Hugo writes decrees, Bush writes signing statements and executive orders.

Other than the difference in what you call them, they both bypass the legislative process, so I don't see why this is a big deal.

Well put.

Folklore wrote:

El Presidente, your people are happy to do your will, and your bank account grows bigger by the moment!

Congratulations!

/Tropico narrator voice

I could so go for some Tropico these days... Now where did I put that disc?

Whoppi: "Mu-fasssa!"

Wait, does this mean that these guys are Scar and the Hyenas?

Farscry wrote:

Hugo writes decrees, Bush writes signing statements and executive orders.

Other than the difference in what you call them, they both bypass the legislative process, so I don't see why this is a big deal.

Fun fact: Bush's "signing statements" do not have the power of law. They are at best a declaration of his intentions as to how he will enforce the law (rather than vetoing outright). Enforcement or lack thereof is still the executive brach's duty, and the varying degrees of enforcement are still a check that the branch has on Congress.

From what I read, he is just trying to eliminate term limits, not the actual elections, so he is still elected official that can be voted out if the people will it, assuming the election process is not just a fraud.

wordsmythe wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Hugo writes decrees, Bush writes signing statements and executive orders.

Other than the difference in what you call them, they both bypass the legislative process, so I don't see why this is a big deal.

Fun fact: Bush's "signing statements" do not have the power of law. They are at best a declaration of his intentions as to how he will enforce the law (rather than vetoing outright). Enforcement or lack thereof is still the executive brach's duty, and the varying degrees of enforcement are still a check that the branch has on Congress.

Wow. Where'd I put that "The more you know" graphic.

That is indeed, a fun fact that will surely have the ladies hopping on your bed.

LeapingGnome wrote:

From what I read, he is just trying to eliminate term limits, not the actual elections, so he is still elected official that can be voted out if the people will it, assuming the election process is not just a fraud.

I'm going to similarly assume that an almost terrifyingly attractive woman just showed up at my work and brought me pizza, because she's desperately in love with me.

Ready? Go!

Folklore wrote:

That is indeed, a fun fact that will surely have the ladies hopping on your bed. ;)

Note the sig.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Well, I'd always thought we ought to be friends with Venezuela, seeing as it's more of a democracy than most of our other allies... But so much for that. F*ck the commie bastard.

Yeah its just such a sad thing that the last thing we supported in Venezuela was the attempted coup. Thereby nullifying all of our efforts to help spread democracy in Venezuela at least.

Zaque wrote:

Yeah its just such a sad thing that the last thing we supported in Venezuela was the attempted coup. Thereby nullifying all of our efforts to help spread democracy in Venezuela at least.

Was there ever any actual evidence of that beyond Chavez's braying? Or have people just decided to accept it as fact?

It's going to be hard to tack down evidence of a US touch in a failed coup, Quintin, though there are documented occasions where US special forces have assassinated democratic leaders in South American nations in order to keep favorable regimes in power. For some reason I want to say it happened in Guatemala but it was about 4 years ago that I read about it. I'll have a look around if no one else knows what I'm talking about.

I'm not arguing that the US has never had a heavy hand in South American politics. I'm just wondering if there was any real indication that we were complicit in this failed coup beyond the US's lack of strong condemnation and Chavez's typical tirades.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm just wondering if there was any real indication that we were complicit in this failed coup beyond the US's immidiate endorsment and recognition of the new government

Fixed it for you.

There's also this first hit on google for Venezuela+coup.

But really, given the past history in the region, the current policy makers and the immidiate response to the coup, there shouldn't be much doubt that they at the very least knew and approved.

We've sponsored 'regime change' in our hemisphere many times over the last 100 years - Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama (twice!), and every time except Grenada corporate/resource interests were a primary factor. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to have tried it again in Peru.

Uh... I don't think our foreign policy is responsible for this. That's like saying your neighbor is an asshole so your wife needs to defer all family decisions to you.

Uh... I don't think our foreign policy is responsible for this. That's like saying your neighbor is an asshole so your wife needs to defer all family decisions to you.

I was referring more to the nationalizing of industry. From that perspective, it's more like saying that your neighbor works with a bunch of shady guys who keep taking stuff you leave outside, so you're going to put a fence around it so that your family at least gets some of the benefit.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm just wondering if there was any real indication that we were complicit in this failed coup beyond the US's immidiate endorsment and recognition of the new government

Fixed it for you.

Thanks for the correction. I hadn't paid much attention at the time so I wasn't aware that of the recognition.

There's also this first hit on google for Venezuela+coup.

Rather unconvincing. They spend more time recounting dirt on Abrams, Reich, and Negroponte's past actions than they do establishing any concrete link to the 2002 coup. Beyond the recognition, everything else seems to be assertions from unnamed sources in the Organisation of American States. Nothing seems to be backed up on paper. There's really no hard evidence that these guys met with US officials?

But really, given the past history in the region, the current policy makers and the immidiate response to the coup, there shouldn't be much doubt that they at the very least knew and approved.

They certainly had motivation. And I'm not saying they weren't linked in some way. I'm just trying to determine if there's conclusive evidence to that effect or if people are simply making assertions based on their own interpretations of the facts.