Pat Robertson Should Be Assassinated

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
hspder wrote:

Yes I am. I honestly am tired of seeing people compare Saddam to Hitler. What made Hitler so dangerous were his resources – the kind of human (especially human), technical and natural resources that Saddam could not even dream of. A dictator is only as dangerous as its ability to inflict actual widespread harm. And in that respect, Hitler and Saddam are/were in completely different universes.

What made Hitler so dangerous was his megalomania - I don’t care if he armed Nazis with spears and shields.

Hitler re-armed Germany in violation of his international agreements - had he complied, this war machine your are intriqued with wouldn’t have existed. It is not as though Hitler just inherited a ripe and ready army, navy and air force. The European view pre-WWII - with the exception of Churchill - was that Hitler was exactly as you describe Saddam: a bad guy, but isolated and containable. You see how that turned out.

Resources can give a maniac an advantage, but it doesn’t ‘make’ the threat - one arms deal can change the whole ballgame. And more besides, it is not as though one can have some slide-rule that can measure when a dictator crosses over some threshold that tips him from being only ‘bad’ to ‘internationally dangerous’.

As such, Saddam and Hitler spoke the same language, had the same agenda. The landscape of world politics is different from Saddam, but that doesn’t change the fact that all the same rules apply.

[/quote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5024413-110878,00.html

Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004

Guardian
George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush’s behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the “Bush/Nazi” connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush’s business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Tantalising

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler’s efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen’s international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush’s links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen’s American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush’s involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush’s ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that “since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country’s war effort”.

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany’s first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany’s economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America’s best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled “Hitler’s Angel Has $3m in US Bank”. UBC’s huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a “secret nest egg” hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC’s business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn’t actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC’s president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: “Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest.”

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen’s Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen’s steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush’s name, and wrote: “Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC,” according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

Red-handed

Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler’s rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen’s partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick’s plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while “American interests” held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH’s involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush’s friend and fellow “bonesman” Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. “The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected,” wrote Knight. “After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors.”

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

“SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939,” says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of “state sovereignty”.

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: “President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton’s signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family.”

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states: “From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented.”

The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: “If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation.”

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer’s book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush’s business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

“You can’t blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?” he said.

“This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich’s defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted,” said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

“The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen,” said Loftus. “At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn’t until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it’s absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were.”

“There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it,” said Loftus. “As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany.”

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. “My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn’t care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks.”

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in “the banking and intelligence communities” and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline “Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush’s Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor”. He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that “the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes”.

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as “traitors to the truth”.

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

jlesk68, the Bush family are all fascists!

I even heard that GHW Bush was intentionally shot down in WWII just to hurt our war effort.

Damn Illuminati!

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s amazing how quickly the wacky left will crawl out if the woodwork after statements like this.

I guess this is another example of the first amendment only applying to the wacked out left.

Do I agree with Robertson? Absolutely not.

Does Sheehan have any more right to say the shit she has been saying than Robertson has to say his?

Staple his mouth shut? Give me a break. [/quote]


Applause and and big HELL YEAH from me! I was beginning to wonder where the people who understand the true meaning of FREEDOM were. :slight_smile:

[quote]Clark Call wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.

Sorry that is a lie, you have obviously never been to Venezuela or talked to an actual Venezuelan. They had Soviet style elections down there in 2004, complete with death squads, ballot-box stuffing and the majority of the opposition party staying home. So if that is what you condsider being elected, then you are ready to be a commisar.

All you Pro-Chavez idiots know nothing, he is a terrorist, he supports FARC of Colombia with weapons and money. He had police fire on protestors in the streets of Caracas. So to me, this is like calling for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Know your facts before you mouth off.[/quote]


These same people know nothing about Saddam Hussein, have never been to Iraq, nor spoken to any Iraqi who actually lived under the reign of Saddam and his two sadistic sons. It’s a sad day for America when some of her own people will give aid and comfort to her enemies–knowingly or not.

In the spirit of promoting BALANCE and fairness, I’ll post a link to something to read rather than obnoxiously posting an entire article on this thread. :slight_smile:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/?p=38

I’m going to jump in here, 'cause history’s my bag, bay-bee, yeah! (Though more the Revolutionary era, but anyway).

[quote]hspder wrote:
Oh no, this discussion again… OK, I’ll bite this time. But just because I like FDR so much.

thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, the Democrats of that age were not pacifists, nor were the Republicans. The GOP was dominated by cranky isolationists - big difference.

hspder wrote:
You’re telling me that people that – like the majority of Republicans still today – publicly state that they couldn’t care less about what everybody else in the world thinks about the US and its actions are not isolationists? [/quote]

Isolationism is different from being involved in the international arena but looking out for U.S. interests first and foremost. The cranky isolationists of the late 19th and early 20th century just wanted to pull back U.S.troops from any and all international commitments, treaties or obligations – basically a “fortress America” type outlook, but really one that was wary of getting pulled into wars among European powers. They specifically didn’t like TR’s empire building or Wilson’s WWI involvement, and did fight against the idea of involving the U.S. in yet another “European conflict,” which is how they viewed WWII at the beginning.

Today most Republicans – especially those scary Neo-cons who are secretly part of the New World Order – aren’t isolationist at all. In fact, they generally favor projection of power and think of the U.S. as a global cop, something the isolationists of the previous era would have disageed with most vehemently.

[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Second, given your political inclinations, it seems odd that what you have labeled the ‘right thing’ - getting involved in WWII sooner if it weren’t for the isolationist GOP - would be nothing more than a naked pre-emptive strike.

Are you ok with that?

hspder wrote:
Yes I am. I honestly am tired of seeing people compare Saddam to Hitler. What made Hitler so dangerous were his resources – the kind of human (especially human), technical and natural resources that Saddam could not even dream of. A dictator is only as dangerous as its ability to inflict actual widespread harm. And in that respect, Hitler and Saddam are/were in completely different universes.[/quote]

This is a whole different conversation. What I read you as saying is that essentially it doesn’t matter how horrible a dictator is in his own country – no matter how large that country is – provided he can’t project that awfulness outside his own borders.

I would differ in my assessment, at least in the humanitarian analysis. In the U.S. interests analysis, that may be a very good point (though of course we thought Saddam was stronger than he turned out to be – both times).

[quote]Clark Call wrote:

Sorry that is a lie, you have obviously never been to Venezuela or talked to an actual Venezuelan. They had Soviet style elections down there in 2004, complete with death squads, ballot-box stuffing and the majority of the opposition party staying home. So if that is what you condsider being elected, then you are ready to be a commisar.

All you Pro-Chavez idiots know nothing, he is a terrorist, he supports FARC of Colombia with weapons and money. He had police fire on protestors in the streets of Caracas. So to me, this is like calling for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Know your facts before you mouth off.[/quote]

Oh come on!!! That sounds like liberal tinfoil crybaby conspiracy talk!! Stolen elections? Where’s that picture of the official seal of the Deomcratic Party with the crying baby.

There were record turnouts, polling hours were extended. The elections were validated by all of the international observers. Thats the bottom line.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
chrisp23 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.

Lets not get carried away. The people of Venezuela have been trying to overthrow a military dictator, ie. Chavez, for quite some time. I have followed his antics for years, being in the oil industry. I am not condoning
assasination, but I do want to point out that the ‘elections’ in which Chavez was proclaimed the winner have been contested as fixed by many people. Chavez is a maniac. Robertson seems to be intent on catching up to him.

That is complete propaganda. The only people supporting a coup are the rich and powerful who want the old gaurd back. They have the backing of the U.S. gov. and business sectors - mainly oil corporations.

However the vast majority of Venezualeans support Chavez. It seems as though he actually produces on his campaign promises. So much so that he won 9 elections in the last 6 years.

Venezuala is a major oil producer and Chavez actually has the balls to defy Uncle Sam’s claim to special low-cost access to Latin America’s natural resources.

Chavez actually takes oil profits and invests them in programs to help eliminate poverty.

This type of activity is dangerous to the privleged as they don’t want someone to set an example for the world to see.

Zeppelin, I don’t know where you get your info, but Chavez is a bad guy.

One of my coworkers wife is Venezuelan.
He brother is still there. They are not rich or powerful.

She has told me stories about how opposition campaign workers are harrassed, beaten and even disappear.

He is bad news.
[/quote]

This is strange, as I work with a guy who’s family lives in Venezuala. He was born and raised there. His family has great admiration for Chavez and apparently so do the majority of Venezulaleans.

I certainly can’t confirm any harrasment of the opposition but I’ll definitely question him about it.

But isn’t it funny how elections in countries who aren’t pro-american are cast as dubious while those who’ve been documented to be corrupt and put in with great support by the U.S. are always seen as fair?

[quote]Clark Call wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.

Sorry that is a lie, you have obviously never been to Venezuela or talked to an actual Venezuelan. They had Soviet style elections down there in 2004, complete with death squads, ballot-box stuffing and the majority of the opposition party staying home. So if that is what you condsider being elected, then you are ready to be a commisar.

All you Pro-Chavez idiots know nothing, he is a terrorist, he supports FARC of Colombia with weapons and money. He had police fire on protestors in the streets of Caracas. So to me, this is like calling for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Know your facts before you mouth off.[/quote]

Actually ClarkCall it is you who’s a victim of propaganda. Your statement about ballot-stuffing and death squads prove it. This all emanates from the U.S. gov. and their corporate conterparts. Once you look beyond the corporate media propaganda to non-corporate news sources you will begin to have the information that is needed to understand the world.

And if you really want to talk about terrorism why don’t we start with one of the biggest organizations located in Washington D.C. But nah, I guess that would challenge your ideas of American mythology so I suppose it’s just easier to keep your head in the sand and pretend all is going well.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s amazing how quickly the wacky left will crawl out if the woodwork after statements like this.

I guess this is another example of the first amendment only applying to the wacked out left.

Do I agree with Robertson? Absolutely not.

Does Sheehan have any more right to say the shit she has been saying than Robertson has to say his?

[/quote]

No, they both have the right to say whatever they want. It’s their perogative to look like/be idiots.

How bad Chavez is really isn’t the point. It’s not our responsibilty to unseat every dictator or corrupt government in the world. You know how many of them there are? We should only get involved when the country has an abundance of oil, and there’s the potential for a no-bid contract. Oh, wait…

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
chrisp23 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.

Lets not get carried away. The people of Venezuela have been trying to overthrow a military dictator, ie. Chavez, for quite some time. I have followed his antics for years, being in the oil industry. I am not condoning
assasination, but I do want to point out that the ‘elections’ in which Chavez was proclaimed the winner have been contested as fixed by many people. Chavez is a maniac. Robertson seems to be intent on catching up to him.

That is complete propaganda. The only people supporting a coup are the rich and powerful who want the old gaurd back. They have the backing of the U.S. gov. and business sectors - mainly oil corporations.

However the vast majority of Venezualeans support Chavez. It seems as though he actually produces on his campaign promises. So much so that he won 9 elections in the last 6 years.

Venezuala is a major oil producer and Chavez actually has the balls to defy Uncle Sam’s claim to special low-cost access to Latin America’s natural resources.

Chavez actually takes oil profits and invests them in programs to help eliminate poverty.

This type of activity is dangerous to the privleged as they don’t want someone to set an example for the world to see.

Zeppelin, I don’t know where you get your info, but Chavez is a bad guy.

One of my coworkers wife is Venezuelan.
He brother is still there. They are not rich or powerful.

She has told me stories about how opposition campaign workers are harrassed, beaten and even disappear.

He is bad news.

This is strange, as I work with a guy who’s family lives in Venezuala. He was born and raised there. His family has great admiration for Chavez and apparently so do the majority of Venezulaleans.

I certainly can’t confirm any harrasment of the opposition but I’ll definitely question him about it.

But isn’t it funny how elections in countries who aren’t pro-american are cast as dubious while those who’ve been documented to be corrupt and put in with great support by the U.S. are always seen as fair?[/quote]

The opposition party was also intimdated into staying home.

I honestly do not know all I should about the situation, and it seems both sides are spewing propaganda.

I do know his economic reforms have been a disaster and people are worse off than ever according to my coworker.

I don’t like Chavez on the basis of his anti-American rhetoric and the people he associates with, such as Saddam and Castro.

[quote]Clark Call wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.

Sorry that is a lie, you have obviously never been to Venezuela or talked to an actual Venezuelan. They had Soviet style elections down there in 2004, complete with death squads, ballot-box stuffing and the majority of the opposition party staying home. So if that is what you condsider being elected, then you are ready to be a commisar.

All you Pro-Chavez idiots know nothing, he is a terrorist, he supports FARC of Colombia with weapons and money. He had police fire on protestors in the streets of Caracas. So to me, this is like calling for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Know your facts before you mouth off.[/quote]

It’s funny how arrogant you are. If you posted your point of view, and said “this is how I feel” it would be one thing, but you seem to feel anyone that doesn’t agree with you is an idiot with no knowledge of anything. When protesters were fired on, do you mean just before the oil thugs kidnapped the president? Because if that’s the incident you are talking about, you should see the rest of the video. Interestingly enough, the corporate media edited the video to look as though the protesters were being fired on from an overpass. The rest of the video shows the gunmen were firing at a sniper who attacked pro-chavez demonstrators, killing several. The street below was competely empty.

The coverage of this incident by the corporate media seriously makes me question their honesty. It seems they have vested interests, and are willing to outright lie.

[quote]Floortom wrote:
Clark Call wrote:

Sorry that is a lie, you have obviously never been to Venezuela or talked to an actual Venezuelan. They had Soviet style elections down there in 2004, complete with death squads, ballot-box stuffing and the majority of the opposition party staying home. So if that is what you condsider being elected, then you are ready to be a commisar.

All you Pro-Chavez idiots know nothing, he is a terrorist, he supports FARC of Colombia with weapons and money. He had police fire on protestors in the streets of Caracas. So to me, this is like calling for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Know your facts before you mouth off.

Oh come on!!! That sounds like liberal tinfoil crybaby conspiracy talk!! Stolen elections? Where’s that picture of the official seal of the Deomcratic Party with the crying baby.

There were record turnouts, polling hours were extended. The elections were validated by all of the international observers. Thats the bottom line.

[/quote]

You obviously don’t read or speak Spanish because that is not what the newspapers said about the election. You must have been readin the NY Times. It is easy to have record turnout when you have commisars vote for rolls and rolls of dead people.

If you believe anything that comes out of Jimmy Carters mouth, you have got issues. Carter idolizes Castro, calls him a great leader. Carter installed the current Iranian government with his backstabbing fascism. I have lived in Venezuela for two years, right when Chavez came to power, he had attempted to seize power in 92 through a military coup.

The country is in an economic downturn, the capitalists are fleeing the country in record numbers. Foreign investments are down, no one wants to invest where a military strongman puts up walls of red tape to suck profitable companies dry. He almost destroyed their petroleum economy by installing his cronies who are both underqualified and corrupt puppets. Wake up, you know nothing of the situation.

[quote]

Sorry that is a lie, you have obviously never been to Venezuela or talked to an actual Venezuelan. They had Soviet style elections down there in 2004, complete with death squads, ballot-box stuffing and the majority of the opposition party staying home. So if that is what you condsider being elected, then you are ready to be a commisar.

All you Pro-Chavez idiots know nothing, he is a terrorist, he supports FARC of Colombia with weapons and money. He had police fire on protestors in the streets of Caracas. So to me, this is like calling for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Know your facts before you mouth off.

It’s funny how arrogant you are. If you posted your point of view, and said “this is how I feel” it would be one thing, but you seem to feel anyone that doesn’t agree with you is an idiot with no knowledge of anything. When protesters were fired on, do you mean just before the oil thugs kidnapped the president? Because if that’s the incident you are talking about, you should see the rest of the video. Interestingly enough, the corporate media edited the video to look as though the protesters were being fired on from an overpass. The rest of the video shows the gunmen were firing at a sniper who attacked pro-chavez demonstrators, killing several. The street below was competely empty.

The coverage of this incident by the corporate media seriously makes me question their honesty. It seems they have vested interests, and are willing to outright lie.[/quote]

Why are there so many communists/fascists in America, it is starting to make me sick. If you are in such admiration of what these dictators provide for their people, move to Venezuela or North Korea or Iran. Get the hell out of the United States.

The last thing we need is legions of people spouting off about the equality provided by communism, extolling the virtues of Marx, Stalin and Mao. When I hear your old ideas, stuff you got out of some Swedish economics textbook I want to puke. 120 million dead, trillions of dollars wasted and 80 lost years of technological development is what these countries have to show for their social experiment.

You want to defend Castro and Chavez, move to their contries, enjoy the lifestyle that their economic systems provide. Quit insulting our system of government and our international policy. My grandparents fled communism when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia because they knew what that type of government was going to bring. They most likely would have been killed in some gulag because they were well educated business people. I am glad that we as Americans have a strong history of killing communists and fascists, it’s what makes us a great nation. We don’t put up with that garbage.

I think Clark makes a great point. Venezuela is in economic turmoil, and their leader is equally comparable to an unarmed hussein. If you asked an Iraqi what he thought of hussein before his capture they would all say they love him, this was out of fear for being reported and having his whole family blood line disappear. People in Iraq still fear him and his DEAD sons for all the attrocities committed. My closest friend is Cuban, his parents fled cuba in the 60’s. They still get to visit once a year for a few weeks. By their accounts it is a horrible place where people live in fear of castro and his army, yet proclaim love for fidel out of FEAR. Chavez is an avid supporter and friend of castro. Anyways my whole point is that people proclaim love of vicious leaders out of fear, just as they did in communist soviet union and east germany. Any bad mouthing of the mother country was met by a visit from the KGB and secret police.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Actually ClarkCall it is you who’s a victim of propaganda. Your statement about ballot-stuffing and death squads prove it. This all emanates from the U.S. gov. and their corporate conterparts. Once you look beyond the corporate media propaganda to non-corporate news sources you will begin to have the information that is needed to understand the world.

And if you really want to talk about terrorism why don’t we start with one of the biggest organizations located in Washington D.C. But nah, I guess that would challenge your ideas of American mythology so I suppose it’s just easier to keep your head in the sand and pretend all is going well. [/quote]

What is with all this corporation bashing, it makes me feel like Im in the Berkley student union. I am afraid you are the one with the proverbial “head in the sand”. I have been to more countries than you can point out on a map and speak more languages than you can comprehend. My experience far outweighs your “Daddy’s putting me through college” communism that you espouse. As far as getting my news from “corporate sources”, you consider “El Univeral” and “El Mundo” from Venezuela bastions of American corporate propaganda. If you would get off your knees from in front of Michael Moore for just a moment, you will notice that all of the theories you claim as your own have been tried and all failed miserably.

I imagine you get your news from Mother Jones or some other kooky communist publication. That is fine, but don’t expect to be accepted for holding on to ideas that have proven to be disastrous and foolhearty.

Do I claim that the United States government is infallable, can do no wrong? Absolutely not, mistakes have been made since the beginning of time. But to say that since our system has a few flaws, that we should scrap the entire idea and grab hold of some of that really successful socialism. Foolish.

I love America and I disdain people that hate our country, including many of it’s own citizens. People like you have had freedom for too long. You need to be reminded what real totalitarianism is, not what you think it is. The fear of being sent to a prison camp and working 18 hour days until the skin peels off your bones. Having commisars kill your children in your own living room. The fear of being shot execution style and buried in a mass grave or how about a good old beheading. I suggest you either come to grips with reality and see the real truth behind what you claim to be a perfect form of government

“Daddy’s putting me through college” communism

That’s a classic. :slight_smile:

[quote]Clark Call wrote:
:

You obviously don’t read or speak Spanish because that is not what the newspapers said about the election. You must have been readin the NY Times. [/quote]

Yeah, just like a dirty liberal reading the NY times.

More tinfoil consipracy stuff? Jeez, I bet you believe the kooky theories aboute shady dealings between Bush and Diebold…not to mention what happened in Florida in 2000 with all that talk about blacks being prevented from votings and purged from voting lists.

So what?? It’s none of our business. They have the right to live and elect their leaders without outside interference. But hey, we have had such great success installing military regimes in South Maerica that you and your fundie friend Robertson may be on to something. Maybe a class act like Pinochet is in order for the good people of Venezuela. That’ll learn em good

BOTTIME LINE

From Wilkepedia: The recall vote was held on August 15, 2004. Record numbers of voters turned out, and polling hours were extended by at least eight hours. 59.25% of the vote was against the recall, for Ch?vez remaining in office. Election observers Jimmy Carter of the Carter Center and Organization of American States Secretary General Cesar Gaviria endorsed the results of Venezuela’s recall referendum

clark call, if you have your informations from venezualan (?) media and they are very anti-chavez, how much of a dictator can he be?