Chávez Suggests Oliver Stone, Sean Penn or Noam Chomsky Be Named Ambassador

[KurtFF8]

Source (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/5/headlines#11)


As a diplomatic standoff between the United States and Venezuela continues, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez offered some suggestions Tuesday on whom President Obama should pick to be his ambassador in Caracas, instead of Larry Palmer, a diplomat who has openly criticized Chávez.
Hugo Chávez: "The naming of Palmer is dead, it has expired, and now they’re going to look for another candidate. I hope they name Oliver Stone. I’d suggest that as a candidate: Oliver Stone. Or who else? Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, or [Noam] Chomsky. We have a lot of friends there. Bill Clinton!"Word.

[Manic Impressive]

LOL :wub: Chavez

[FreeFocus]

This is cool for sure, but did he just suggest Bill Clinton as well?

[DuracellBunny97]

forget Sean Penn, nobody takes a movement seriously when actors are at the forefront, same for Oliver Stone. Noam Chomsky is a brilliant linguist and intellectual, my only concerne is he might die soon, and right-wingers all claim him to be a fool.

[FreeFocus]

forget Sean Penn, nobody takes a movement seriously when actors are at the forefront, same for Oliver Stone. Noam Chomsky is a brilliant linguist and intellectual, my only concerne is he might die soon, and right-wingers all claim him to be a fool.

Right-wingers would consider any ambassador who doesn't serve US imperial interests a "fool," so I'm not sure we should be concerned with what they think.

I mean, this is good for rhetoric, but no US ambassador will oppose US hegemony/imperialism. Let's be real about that.

[Palingenisis]

LOL :wub: Chavez

WHY?

This is more of his showmanship....It gets on my nerves.

[thesadmafioso]

I do find Chavez to be a wonderful leader for Venezuela and I support a great deal of his legislative actions, but on the world stage he really needs to be more refined. Comments like this really do not help his legitimacy much, and they sort of detract from his image.

[RadioRaheem84]

Clinton?

[Sensible Socialist]

I do find Chavez to be a wonderful leader for Venezuela and I support a great deal of his legislative actions, but on the world stage he really needs to be more refined. Comments like this really do not help his legitimacy much, and they sort of detract from his image.
To be honest, I love when he makes comments like these. There is no need to be cordial with imperialists. If anything, it's better that he does this. At least people won't see him as some sort of cold-hearted dictator. Let the man have a little fun. :laugh:

[Diello]

To be honest, I love when he makes comments like these. There is no need to be cordial with imperialists. If anything, it's better that he does this. At least people won't see him as some sort of cold-hearted dictator. Let the man have a little fun. :laugh:

I have a similar reaction-- it's nice when high-ranking politicians say things that don't sound like they were run through fifty different filters to strain out all potentially politically risky content.

(Except, of course, when you go too far in that direction and end up with George W. Bush or Idi Amin.)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Clinton?

Well, not exactly the worst option, wouldn't you agree? I mean, Kim Jong-Il doesn't mind him either. Though, I like Chavez's other three choices better.

[Manic Impressive]

I bet even Obama had to laugh at this one

[piet11111]

forget Sean Penn, nobody takes a movement seriously when actors are at the forefront

Reagan for the republicans and Schwarzenegger also for the republicans man i wish you where right about actors making movements ridiculous.

[bricolage]

I respect Chavez for being a top irl troll.

[Comrade Gwydion]

From a 'real' point of view, Clinton has it advantages (for both the US & Venezuelan governments). He's just you're average right-winged American, unlike Stone or Chomsky who are shunned by the mainstream press, while at the same time he does have an ability to negotiate with those the mainstream sees as 'radical'.

This might lower United States agressive policies. The question is what the costs are: will Clinton succeed in slowing down Venezuelan's revolutionairy process?