Chávez: 'George W Bush, you are a donkey'

[вор в законе]

Chávez: 'George W Bush, you are a donkey'
Caracas, Venezuela

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez flung fresh insults at his United States counterpart George Bush on Sunday, calling him a "coward" over his handling of the Iraq war.

"Come here, Mr Danger, you are a coward, murderer, genocidal, alcoholic, drunk, immoral -- you are the worst, Mr Danger, you are sick, and I know so personally," Chávez said during his Sunday television programme, Hello, President, which has become increasingly a forum for his views on US foreign policy.

"You are a coward because you did not go to Iraq to lead your armed forces. It is very easy to command them from afar. If it occurs to you one day to invade Venezuela, I will be here waiting for you on the savanna, Mr Danger," said Chávez, a former paratrooper.

Chávez also blasted Bush over the White House's annual National Security Strategy, released last week, which called the leftist leader a "demagogue awash in oil money" who is "undermining democracy and seeking to destabilise the region.

"Mr Danger, George W Bush, you are a donkey," Chávez said.

Venezuela is one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States.

Chávez also pointed out that disapproval of Bush's handling of Iraq hit a new low last week of 65%, according to a Newsweek poll.

"You are killing children who are not to blame for your illnesses, for your complexes, kid. Your soldiers are bombing cities. Yesterday we saw images of five murdered children," Chávez said. - Sapa-AFP

Mail & Guardian (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=267120&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/)

Independent (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&click_id=2813&art_id=qw1142804891840R131&set_id=6)


----------------------

http://www.tom-davis.org/politics/asshole_bush/bush_donkey.jpg



:lol:

[Intifada]

Chavez speaks the truth about George W Bush.

Bush acts like a titan, but he is a little and cowardly man.

[dusk]

Bush is a donkey who looks like a monkey. :)

[Niall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:53 PM
Chavez speaks the truth about George W Bush.

Bush acts like a titan, but he is a little and cowardly man.
yeah, very very true

[redstar2000]

Donkeys are hard-working, useful animals that more than "earn their keep". Could anyone -- even a capitalist -- say the same for Bush? :lol:

It seems to me that there is a considerable contrast between the rhetorical "style" of Chávez and that of Castro.

When Castro speaks, it strikes me that he does attempt to give his audience a sober and thoughtful analysis of the subject. On the other hand, it seems to me that Chávez performs for his audience...just "tossing stuff out" without much thought.

Like an entertainer "testing" material with his audience to see "what they like".

For those who "see socialism" in Venezuela, this ought to be sort of disturbing.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Revolution67]

Originally posted by redstar2000
Donkeys are hard-working, useful animals....Yes, I agree with comrade redstar's view. A donkey or an ass, is a servile, docile, yet hard working and sturdy animal. Donkey, in my opinion, is the only animal, which comes closest to human proletariats in capitalist society. Since, we all fight for the workers cause, lets not deride a living being, which symbolises the workers class. By making fun of the animal, we would be only unwittingly mocking at our own proletarian brothers/sisters all over the world.

Hugo Chavez is a loose canon, who speaks first and then thinks about what he just shot off his mouth. Do not give him undue attention. He is just a 'tinpot' cranky-head dictator.

[Delirium]

"Come here, Mr Danger, you are a coward, murderer, genocidal, alcoholic, drunk, immoral -- you are the worst, Mr Danger, you are sick, and I know so personally,"

Sounds like chavez discovered the random flame generator! :lol:

Just enjoy the insults redstar, we can worry about how chavez is using anti-american sentiments to further his own goals later.

[Fenzark]

Chávez is probably right when he says that it's easy to lead an army from afar. But why would Bush even consider leading his forces himself? That would certainly not prove his bravery, it would only prove his foolishness. Why should a politician engage in combat when he is clearly not suitable for the job?

I'm not supporting all that is being done by the States in Iraq. There will always be civilian casualties in war - but that is not an excuse anyways.

I think you all view Bush the wrong way. He is supposed to support America. Which basically means he has all kinds of different people whom he works with to make his decisions. He may have the last line, but ultimatily it is based on other qualified personnel that does a part of his decisions. As well as everything he says in public.

Which is why I think that attacking one person for what a whole country does is weak. I think it would be better to see the whole situation more realistically, and not blame the one person who NOT by himself directly responsible for these happenings, such as unstable soldiers etc..

Calling someone a donkey is either way very childish, in my humble opinion. And that's what my general problem with him speaking, it's hard to take him seriously.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:08 PM
Which is why I think that attacking one person for what a whole country does is weak.
especially when that one person is the leader of that country...

[Fenzark]

Yes, he is, and that's why he's getting exposed. Ofcourse you have to point your critisism to someone. My point still is that people ONLY see the whole situation as Bush is the ONLY one responsible for what is happening. He is not. I just wish more people would see that.

[Dreckt]

Yes, he is, and that's why he's getting exposed. Ofcourse you have to point your critisism to someone. My point still is that people ONLY see the whole situation as Bush is the ONLY one responsible for what is happening. He is not. I just wish more people would see that.

Is he also not responsible for all the people he killed during his rule in Texas, specially when he had the power to save their lives?

[bolshevik butcher]

While Chavez is as this shows a bit of a showman I think that its ridiculous to use this to dismiss all that is happening in Venezuela.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah of course, alot of people think all of this is due to Bush as an individual and not a product of the capitalist system itself. Not only is that idiotic, it's also dangerous. Communists need to do all we can to educate on this issue.

[vox_populi]

Do you guys think that Chávez rhetoric will be considered to provocative by the U.S?
Maybe resulting in a C.I.A sponsored coup?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Perhaps Chavez has had some bad experiences with donkeys! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Chavez has gone too far.

Donkeys are not to be discriminated.

[Steve72]

Look Hugo chavez is just trying to provoke bush into saying something bad about Venezuela so he can stir up the masses against US imperialism. Have you noticed that everytime a US politician opens their dirty mouths aganst Venezuela Chavez attacks back, he thrives on confrontation and he is trying to provoke Mr danger(bush) into saying something stupid so he can stir up the masses even more. I also believe his war of words against bush is personal as well i am sure but Mr dangr has not fallen for it, have you noticed he has not said anything against Chavez in public in all these years, in private i am sure it is a different matter!!

[Fenzark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:38 PM

Yes, he is, and that's why he's getting exposed. Ofcourse you have to point your critisism to someone. My point still is that people ONLY see the whole situation as Bush is the ONLY one responsible for what is happening. He is not. I just wish more people would see that.

Is he also not responsible for all the people he killed during his rule in Texas, specially when he had the power to save their lives?
Yes, he probably had the power to save their life. That, however, is another story.

The military in Iraq is responsible for what is directly going on down there. Many soldiers are inexperienced and panic easily, which can lead to severe violations of warfare rules as killing of civilians. It should never happens. Bush can not be directly linked to this. He didn't pull the trigger. Indirectly, he did perhaps since he sent the forces down there. But directly - no.

And I would not base Bush as a figure of capitalism. Bush is an individual, as we all are. He just represents America. Basing Bush as the best represantative of capitalism is stupid.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:48 PM
Donkeys are hard-working, useful animals that more than "earn their keep". Could anyone -- even a capitalist -- say the same for Bush? :lol:

It seems to me that there is a considerable contrast between the rhetorical "style" of Chávez and that of Castro.

When Castro speaks, it strikes me that he does attempt to give his audience a sober and thoughtful analysis of the subject. On the other hand, it seems to me that Chávez performs for his audience...just "tossing stuff out" without much thought.

Like an entertainer "testing" material with his audience to see "what they like".

For those who "see socialism" in Venezuela, this ought to be sort of disturbing.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
These are just random sentences from otherwise long speeches. It may not be the "best" rhetorical style, but he does provide "sober analysis" on top of ad hominems.

Besides, it sounds better in spanish. ;)

[вор в законе]

Hugo Chavez is a loose canon, who speaks first and then thinks about what he just shot off his mouth. Do not give him undue attention. He is just a 'tinpot' cranky-head dictator.

Sometimes i feel that i am in a bourgeois forum.

[McLeft]

Man I love Chavez, I wish he was my dad. :wub:

He is a great man and he always speaks the truth.

EDIT: For those of you who think that Chavez didn't think about what he said when he called Bush a donkey let me tell you that the term 'Burro' or Donkey which is widely used in Latin America is also an expression to say that somebody is 'dumb' or 'stupid' or someone who talks 'nonesense' I hope this clears things up for those of you who are opposed to my daddy.

Red Brigade, I could not agree more.

[MeTaLhEaD]

Chavez is imperialism fearless i love him!

i agree with red brigade!
some people here are pro imperialism

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:53 PM
Chavez speaks the truth about George W Bush.

Bush acts like a titan, but he is a little and cowardly man.
This couldn't be said better.

I hope Chávez continues to stand up to him. If Venezuela and Cuba, population 36 million combined, can scare the US (pop. 300 million) shitless, a united Latin America would shove the octopus back to its lair.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:48 PM
For those who "see socialism" in Venezuela, this ought to be sort of disturbing.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I don't see socialism in Venezuela quite yet, but I sincerely believe that it will be achieved.

I do however, "see anti-imperialism" in Venezuela's policies.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

I do however, "see anti-imperialism" in Venezuela's policies.
How so?

[Tekun]

I was cracking up when I saw this on Univision :lol:
Although I agree with RS2k, Im kinda glad that he's not just another American pawn doing all of the US's bidding

As such, we must also remember that the proletarian is still not in power in Venezuela, and as such we cannot allow Chavez's anti-imperialistic rhetoric to hypnotize us from the true goal: which is to uplift and empower the proletariat

[Guest1]

Yes, the proletariat is not decisively in power yet, but for the first time in Venezuela, the state is not tied to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

A struggle is taking place on the ground, and it is now being reflected in the state itself, with revolutionary elements leading to victories for the proletariat (nationalizations and collectivizations) and reactionary elements attempting to hold them back and reverse the tide.

Chavez is pressured by both, but so far he has pretty consistently sided with the revolutionary elements, who have been able to put alot of pressure on the state as a result of the level of organization and consciousness amongst workers. One example of that organization would be the recently formed Revolutionary Front of Workers in Occupied Factories, attempting to further the factory occupation movement and the procces of workers' control in Venezuela.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana
Yes, the proletariat is not decisively in power yet, but for the first time in Venezuela, the state is not tied to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

This would seem to suggest a "dual power" analysis.

But if that were true, then where are the Venezuelan Soviets?

Where are the working class organs of state power?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Steve72]

Just because there are no soviet style soviets does not mean there are no embryonic forms of workers power which could lead to soviets. Firstly there are the revolutionary front of workers who are base in nationaised factories like Invepal and Inveval and in occupied factories like sel-fex and others. There is increasing workers control in state factories like Alcasa (aluminium) and Cabelum (Electric cables) and Cadela (electric company). In the barrios and elsewhere there are working class community councils being set up and which are independent of the bureacracy and which will control their own budgets. This is the beginning of the process of working class power which will grow as time goes by. Just have some patience eh revolution is a process which can be quick or slow depending on circumstances.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Like most of you, I enjoyed Chavez's ironicalness. Chavez broke all of the diplomatic principles. It's not that whenever we could hear truthful words of a leader or a diplomat. However I have to admit that Chavez stated carelessly and that was not useful for either Chavez himself or his country. People will feel he treated as an "immature" leader.


Chavez is imperialism fearless i love him!

i agree with red brigade!
some people here are pro imperialism
Oh, the people who don't support the way Chavez stated are not absolutely pro-imperalism. I don't denounce what Chavez said about G.W.Bush but I don't appreciate the way he used.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 21 2006, 05:42 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 21 2006, 05:42 AM)
Che y Marijuana
Yes, the proletariat is not decisively in power yet, but for the first time in Venezuela, the state is not tied to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

This would seem to suggest a "dual power" analysis.

But if that were true, then where are the Venezuelan Soviets?

Where are the working class organs of state power?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Actually there are lots of factories now run under systems of workers control and some workers committees have quite a lot of power in towns. Although I agree Chavez has done too muchw rok within beugorise law he has called for the working class to seize the means of producation recently and has said he will provide and help to them that he can.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Steve72
Just because there are no soviet style soviets does not mean there are no embryonic forms of workers power which could lead to soviets.

Maybe...maybe not.

But for a "dual power" analysis to make sense, then you have to have real functioning organs of working class power...otherwise, state power remains entirely in the hands of the capitalist class, by definition.

Maybe different capitalists...the "traditional elite" in Venezuela (de facto agents of U.S. imperialism) seems to be "on the way out".

But there is no "law of history" that forbids "new capitalists" from taking over under the "banners of revolution".


This is the beginning of the process of working class power which will grow as time goes by. Just have some patience eh; revolution is a process which can be quick or slow depending on circumstances.

This one seems to be extremely slow by historical standards.

I don't deny the possibility that things could move much further to the left there...but the likelihood is another matter entirely.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Steve72]

The Venezuela revolution is slow no doubt about it but there are a number of important reasons why

1. Venezuela is not Russia 1917 Chavez won at the ballot box not through a coup he faces the same problems as allende in Chile

2. Venezuela is governed through the Constitution created in 2000 not all of it is progressive. Chavez also has to respect legal nicities which Castro and lenin never did.

3. Venezuela has to deal with a corrupt bureacratic state apparatus which it is slowly dismantling but which is utterly corrupt and obstructive.

4. The coalition which makes up the governing MVR is made up of different class interests from social liberals to marxists therefore agreements to advance the revolution are difficult.

5. The economy is indeed in the middle of an oil boom which to some extent has numbed the class struggle as there is enough wealth to share around though some of the rich do not like this.

These are some of the problems that Chavez faces and it is a daunting task but Chavez cannot do it alone he cannot micro manage the economy or make decisions in every corner of the country. There are many in the country who are trying to sabotage this process and undermine it, these are bureacrats from the old system plus people in his own party who think this process has gone far enough. The only way to advance this process is for the working class and peasentry to mobilise to defend and advance its interest and to help Chavez in his aims.

[jackrocker999]

Hugo Chavez called Bush a Drunken Donkey. Story and funny pics
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/comic_feature_links.htm