Spain's king tells Venezuela's Chavez to "shut up"

Source: Reuters

SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Spain's King Juan Carlos told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Saturday to "shut up" during closing speeches by leaders from the Latin world that brought the Ibero-American summit to an acrimonious end.

"Why don't you shut up?" the king shouted at Chavez, pointing a finger at the president when he tried to interrupt a speech by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Zapatero was in the middle of a speech at the summit of mostly leftist leaders from Latin America, Portugal, Spain and Andorra, and was criticizing Chavez for calling former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar a fascist.
...
"I want to express to you President Hugo Chavez that in a forum where there are democratic governments ... one of the essential principles is respect," Zapatero told the leaders gathered in the Chilean capital, Santiago.

"You can disagree radically, without being disrespectful," Zapatero, a socialist, said sternly, drawing applause from some of the other heads of state.

Chavez, a former soldier, made his mark on the three-day summit from the start, announcing his arrival earlier in the week with defiant lyrics from a Mexican ballad.

"With the truth in hand, I do not offend, I do not fear," Chavez said on Saturday. "The government of Venezuela reserves the right to respond to any aggression."
...
Chavez interrupted his speech at the rally to call Cuba's Fidel Castro, who he considers his mentor. Chavez paraphrased a message from Castro congratulating Chileans who fought against former dictator Augusto Pinochet.

"Well Fidel, what a shame that we don't have speakerphone on this mobile, the people wanted to hear you," said Chavez, dressed in a red T-shirt.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071110/wl_nm/chile_summit_dc

---

Fisticuffs!

wouldn't it be likely to expect an interruption?

Ironically, he can dish it but surely he throws a hissy fit when he has to take his own medicine.

He should concentrate on the well being of his own people, and preserve the rule of law with normal approaches than all the attention whoring he does over seas. The fact that he canoodles with Castro always has diminished my opinion of him.

Zapatero is a jackass anyway... I hate the fact that I have to side with the King on this one (I am part Spanish --mum's side-- I grew up there, my dad was in the AF deployed in Europe).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I agree with some of the Che's ideology, not with the methods. The idea was good, alas the implementation was less than half assed.

I am a leftist who don't care much for dictators no matter the color or ideology they come from. Just because Castro claims to be a leftist doesn't mean I agree with him, or care much about him. Same goes with Chavez, he is a jackass although not a dictator he has had a lot of issues when it comes to walk the walk that he so loudly talks about.

But don't say Joe Lieberman or another luminary of the DLC, will you?

Re my icon, yes, most of the time, I like to idle in a kind of aimless reverie, but now and again, a right-winger writes something so stupid that I have to crank up the old brain cells to ridicule their lunacy.

A leftist dictator is still a dictator. Telling him to shut up was the right thing to do. And why do you accuse poster #8 of being right wing? Just because he doesn't subscribe to your narrow view of the world?

might be his icon, since Che has been so summarily demoted. Maybe liquidated. Oh, sorry. That's already been done.

Would it, I wonder, be someone few people outside his own neighbourhood would know about? Who has not managed to affect the lives of millions of poor people for the better? That would be real convenient from a right-wing point of view. Bring that Che icon back again!

Chavez is on friendly terms with Castro, whom many refer to as a dictator. After reading tons of articles but not actually going there, I am leaning toward believing that Castro is a dictator and Chavez isn't.

I figure I could easily be wrong however. It's hard to trust anything you read when much of US insight into Latina America comes from exiled Baptista supporters or Cuban newspapers.

On the subject of the thread...heh, I love Chavez and all but I got a funny mental picture. He's a great revolutionary leader but he does needs some tact lessons

Castro is a Dictator with a country with a much better infant mortality rate than the U.S. Cuba suffers from U.S. policies and having few natural resources.

You underestimate buffoons if an elected Chavez is effectively loud, righteously annoying to a self-proclaimed "Leftist." Chavez is playing a part in public. In private, he is decent political Chess player for a guy the the CIA was sent to delete.

Nor the leader we seek.
Too bad. Because he has a colorful turn of phrase, economic clout and a good posture.

I think Chavez should accept the fact that his own constitution term limits himself out. I don't understand why DUers are willing to accept such a blatantly anti-democratic action. It's tinpot.

Zapatero is a great man and he did his best to difuse the situation that CHAVEZ created. Zapatero is intelligent articulate and is doing a great job for his people.

... -Spain’s King: Why don’t you shut up?

-Bachelet: Please, don’t make a conversation, you have already had time to express your points of view, president, you have to finish,

-Chávez: President Aznar may be Spanish but he is a fascist and a……

-Zapatero: President Hugo Chávez, I think an essence exists, and it is that in order to respect and to be respected, we must try not to discredit. You can have different ideas, condemn conducts, but without discrediting. What I want to express is that a good way to work is to understand each other in favour of our countries, we must respect each other, and I ask – president Bachelet- that must be a rule of conduct in a summit which represents citizens, we must respect our leaders, every presidents and former presidents of all the countries that form this community ...

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_74503/world-news/Transcription-clash-between-Chavez-Zapatero-and-Spainrsquos/

It doesn't give full context, however.

The first thing it says Chavez states is "Tell him to respect." Who is "him" - Aznar, or the King? I'd like to know what provoked Chavez to start interrupting in the first place.

Is how it's supposed to be so news-worthy that it's on the front page of the headlines on Yahoo.

They have to keep Chavez in the headlines in order to build "the bogeyman". It's not really a newsworthy story but if one pays close attention,these type of Chavez stories pop up all the time. It doesn't have much to do with Chavez in my opinion. It has more to do with South America leaning left and becoming more socialist in the last 7 years whilst kicking out the resource grabbing western oil companies and putting that money into programs to help the poor and indiginous people of those countries. The Bushies and their buddies just can't stand the fact that Chavez standsup to them and throws it back in their face at the same time. Hence the ridiculous stories and the anger of the Spanish "King".(Alaughable term in the modern day by the way.)

Some countries value aspects of their heritage. Is it 'laughable' that the British still have a queen?

Atavistic anachronisms, every one and absolutely all.

About as useful to society as a pro sports team.

These so called "royals" should all shut up and go away!

(Except perhaps in Thailand where it is only their king who is able to keep that fractious country together,)

Otherwise why would parliamentary democracies bother having presidents?

And people like pro sports as well. You may disagree with it, but the majority of the people don't.

tourist draw and nothing more. The fact that in the 21st century we still idolize those of "Royal" lineage speaks volumes about how far we have to go before we truly evolve as a species. Hell the so called civilzed world recently performed a public lynching of Saddam Hussein. Something that belongs in the Middle Ages not in the modern world. How about the "king" of Saudi Arabia? Are you a fan of that fellow?

There are others who disagree. It's a harmless institution in a PARLIAMENTARY monarchy. Your opinion is just as valid as any other's.

Good luck trying to create a British Republic, by the way. Are you going to give Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall independence as well? Yeah... good luck with all of that.

deserve to have their own countries. Would you have England still hanging on to India, Egypt, or the former British colonies in the states?

is uniting, after having been exploited and raped, bullied, stolen from, and intimidated all these long, desperate years is completely obscured, ignored, once again, in hope of attracting the usual right-wing, racist rabble for the customary bellowing and overheating, who would go mad if they imagined the vast numbers of darker complected native South and Central Americans are going to take back their countries legally, democratically.

Anything to keep the short attention-span-segment hot and bothered about some populist leader who intends to help his people, instead of the multinationals, and the insatiable appetite for power within the U.S. right-wing attracts them instantly, and conceals the reality of what is happening, and has happened.

The real power players of the American domination of Latin America, people like Jesse Helms, are dying out: that's why they have a need for a new plan for total control from the Neo-Cons, and the help of their right-wing controlled corporate media until their goals are met, and their control through puppet dictators is reinstated.

If these reactionaries broke down and did any research on US/Latin American history, it would take too much time away from their screeching exercises at the message boards so they always opt to sacrifice actual knowledge for volume, and hopes of shouting down the ones who actually make sure they know what they're discussing FIRST.

You may recall there was absolutely NO right-wing backlash to any of the bloody massacres, coups, ongoing torture, genocide over the decades throughout South and Central America. People were getting slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands, and it was A-OK with the American right-wing. Nothing could be better. God was in His Heaven and all was right with the world. The junta leaders and US coup engineered dictators worked for Washington, for right-wing Republican Presidents. NOT A PEEP from these guys.

Really shows you how deeply their sense of "right and wrong" really reaches.

Why, clear to the bottom of their overflowing pockets, dontcha know?

"Chavez is a threat."

NOT ONE of these shrieking shills ever has -anything- credible to substantiate this tired lie...

Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

by threatening Spanish companies in Venezuela unless he gets an apology...I'd say the criticism is right on.

to the status quo.

Expect 2-4 stories a week about him between now and 12/2. The corporati are trying to tank the referendum on Venezuela's constitutional reforms. They will fail and knowing that, they are desperate.

1) anti-royalist, anti-elitist, which classes I regard as left-over parasites.

2) anti-Fascist.

3) anti-AZNAR and anti-Shrub, having said back at the FAKE alliance of AZNAR defying 90+ percent of his country's will and his country's religious leader's will, that Shrub had just hit it off with him because Shrub had to look hard to find world leaders shorter than him.

4) and despite having enjoyed it when CHAVEZ called Shrub Satan and smelling of sulphur.



===========Despite all of these things, I am thoroughly enjoying parasite Juan Carlos telling CHAVEZ to STFU!1


Ordinarily I would Alert on all CHAVEZ threads and request they be confined to the Latin American forum where I would never see them. And fresh from another one a couple of days ago in LBN where there was the usual CHAVEZ flamefest--yet, I just LUERVE this!1

Please, this is in the same vein as my cussing at the t.v. every time Shrub's puss is on it. I don't need the lectures on how unintellectual my post is, how I'm spouting White House and/or M$M "talking points," *or* any other flaming thing that glorifies CHAVEZ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNwbjcuQUv8

No dinosaur soup for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd4G9XxJOc

Anyone with an ounce of self-respect would throw down the trappings of "royalty."

should also stfu. Chavez is a child

The Venezuelan people seem to like him okay.

There's enough problems in the USA for me to worry about.

Well, sure...because the ones who DON'T like him okay are censored by the government.

From the Wikipedia: "According to the International Press Institute, the Inter-American Press Association and Human Rights Watch, the administration of President Hugo Chávez tightened its grip on the press in 2005, while groups close to the government, including the Bolivarian Circles, hampered journalists’ ability to report. President Chávez’s government introduced harsher penalties for libel, defamation and insult, which resulted in a growing number of journalists appearing before the courts. The National Assembly approved by a simple majority the controversial Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television, or gag law, which, in effect, makes the private radio and television system part of the state, which controls its schedules, programs and content."

Reporters Without Borders rated Venezuela 115th/168 in its global press freedom listing. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388

on using a name similar to Doctors Without Borders. In order to censor the media in Venezuela, the government would have to shut 70% of it down because it is owned by the opposition. Go see what a legit organization has to say about Venezuela. Go find FAIR's analysis. You might be surprised.

/grammar

where their funding comes from. They fooled me, too.

from the NED. And that their principal areas of interest are Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reporters_Without_Borders

Edit: And here's the link to the NED page. Sorry!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NED

but Haiti?

anyway, the NED is a bipartisian organization that also goes beyond traditional right and left

I have few issues with the NED

or the dirty election later on, in which completed ballots were found in piles, smoldering at the city dump, just outside a city, saved only because of an apparent unexpected shower. This attempt to throw the election to the candidate _Bush wanted was voided, and the appropriate candidate, Preval, won.

Here's an article written before _Bush managed to arm, train, outfit forces in the Dominican Republic and have them overthrow, AGAIN, Haiti's democratically elected, beloved President Aristide. It also refers to your "bipartisan" N.E.D.:

Aristide was re-elected in Haiti’s 2000 presidential elections, the same year that George W. Bush entered office. Aristide won with 92 percent of the vote in an election declared free and fair by the Organization of American States, of which the U.S. is a member. However, shortly after Bush’s own tainted election, his administration questioned the election of seven senators from Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party. Despite the resignation of the senators, the Bush Administration used these inflated allegations to justify the withdrawal of $512 million in Inter-American Development Bank loans to Haiti. The Administration pressured the World Bank, the IMF, and the European Union to follow with reduction of other planned assistance.

While obstructing aid and loans, the U.S. spent millions to fund the “Democratic Platform of Civil Society Organizations and Opposition Political Parties.” The Democratic Platform, developed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and funded by the International Republican Institute, combines the “Democratic Convergence” and “The Group of 184 Civil Society Organizations” (G-184) in opposition to the Aristide’s government. The DC consists of 200 small political organizations ranging from Maoists to free market liberals and ultra-right wing Duvalierists, who refuse participation in electoral processes and who are responsible for violent attacks on the Haitian government. The G-184 is a group of civil society organizations headed by Andre Apaid, U.S. citizen and owner of Alpha Industries, one of Haiti’s largest cheap labor exporters producing for a number of U.S. firms including IBM, Sperry/Unisys, Remington and Honeywell.

After the forced removal of Aristide, the National Liberation and Reconstruction Front, the new paramilitary group comprised of former FRAPH members, is collaborating with the Democratic Platform in the form of neo-liberal structural adjustment. Their intent is to assist “civilian” political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with the installation of American style democracy/corporate domination. Incidentally, NED also provided funds to the “Democratic Coordination,” another “civil society organization” based in Venezuela, which initiated the attempted coup against President Hugo Chavez.

These opposition groups, funded, trained and supplied by U.S. forces, are waging a contra style war against Haiti. The new government, led by Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, is made up of human rights criminals, drug dealers, and thugs involved in the 1990 and 2004 insurrections. A consistent and systematic campaign of terror and violence is being carried out by the likes of Guy Philippe, Louis Jodel Chamblain, and Jean Tatoune. Philippe, a drug dealer and former police chief, plucked from the Haitian army to be specially trained by U.S. forces in Ecuador, organized the Haitian opposition from the Dominican Republic where he was required to check in with the CIA two to three times a month. Chamblain, former number two man in FRAPH, sentenced twice for murder, convicted in the 1994 Raboteau massacre and in the 1993 assasination of democracy-activist Antoine Izmery, joins Philippe to lead seminars on “democratic” opposition with machine guns slung over their shoulders. Tatoune, another FRAPH leader also convicted of massacre in Raboteau and identified by victims as having shot several civilians, arrived in an U.S. helicopter to stand next to the de facto prime minister as a “freedom fighter.”
(snip/...)

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/12.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DU'ers put in hundreds and hundreds of hours watching the bloodbath approach, and discussing it, and pondering the attempted election sabotage in later days.

so he was some sort of saint while he was in office?

I'm not condoning any foreign government coming in and overthrowing a country's leader but Aristide was certainly no said

his followers weren't boy scounts by any stretch

Go ahead, spend some of your free time you could be posting, and use it to inform yourself on what _Bush did to Haiti, just like his filthy father. As a Democrat, you should try to keep track of these things.

Who the hell said he was a saint? That's an ignorant, obnoxious device used smear human beings with whom a poster differs, to wildly misrepresent, and exaggerate the words and values of others, rather than focusing properly on what needs to be examined, illuminated, exchanged in an intelligent, productive manner.


~~~~ click ~~~~



~~~~ click ~~~~

~~~~ click ~~~~

I'm betting that some of the people murdered by his followers would disagree with the characterization of him being beloved

but of course he wasn't responsible for the actions of his followers, no?

Services a purpose. Despise a man because he is crook, a liar and evil. Which of these is Chavez? Oh just loud, great way to judge.

as such i see chavez as a man who constantly needs to draw attention to himself one way or another. Im no expert on the situation in venezuala but im fairly certain if he was making tremendous progress that i would hear at least something about it. However, i hear nothing except the rhetoric of a very lonely man

Because he outwitted CIA goons. You know why he is loud? So that if something like it is attempted again the world would be well aware. You will not hear of progress in Venezuela. Chavez is rarely given any credit because his style threatens the very power structure of current world elitism. For instance most call him a Dictator. They can't even give the straight story that the guy is DEMOCRATICALLY elected by a wide margin and there is NO indicting he cheated. He has done a lot, but you will not find it in U.S. Corporate Media.

im sorry, but worshipping his throne is just getting pretty damn old to me.

Superficialities attract the ill-informed.

but im fairly certain if he was making tremendous progress that i would hear at least something about it.

Get reading and stop being a passive consumer of the news is my advice. You won't hear about it unless you actively look beyond the AP and AFP et al stories of this world. There are many people who have a stake in NOT telling people about the progress that is being made and the numerous positive aspects of the Bolivarian Revolution.

The "threat of a good example" is what Chomsky called it, from memory.

Give this a shot
http://mondediplo.com/2006/09/13venezuela

and I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about your ill informed remarks to a discussion board.

lol

because from the information i have seen, most of his moves are borderline authoritarian.

what is really involved in these reforms.

Now you've given them a chance to bring themselves current with what they're attempting to discuss.

Nation (11/8/07).
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/klein

God, is it good!

And I expect that Chavez was shoving a little of the "shock doctrine" back in the fascists' faces, by calling Aznar what he is. Too bad he didn't use the full treatment ("fucking fascist"). But that would've been...ahem..."disrespectful."

Fuck the King of Spain! And fuck Reuters! Haven't they got anything better to do, than embarrassing rude kings and fucking the poor over?

and Juan Carlos, king though he may be, was instrumental in bringing democracy to Spain after Franco. It was Chavez who interrupted Zapatera when he was in the middle of a speech, but of course YOU have no problem with that. Both Chavez and the King were rude.

My problem with Chavez is easy; he has a monumental ego. Not unusual in a politician, but his is even more outsized than most.

And no, I don't think he's a dictator, and yes I think he's done some good things for his country.

He's still a bombastic egotist.

...with steering Spain toward democracy on Franco's death.
There were many in Spain who were looking for a new Franco when Juan Carlos kept the faith and insisted that Spain would become a democracy.
if he yells at somebody to shut up, he gets a pass in my book. He is a hero in my book, royal or not.

Hey, Picassso's "Guernica" is displayed in Madrid. And Picasso decreed it would never be so until Spain became a genuine democracy.

look it up.

:hi:

:hi:

having seen the first part. It's completely helpful that you've contributed this to the conversation:so many could benefit from reading it.

Great steps lie just before Latin American countries which will have to be negotiated skillfully, and courageously. God forbid they should have their peoples' wellbeing stolen or extorted, forcibly or covertly from them ever again.

Hell no! That's job #1!

Corporatism uber alles!

No, that can't be right, because he's our progressive hero. Fighting for the common man. ;-/

And to hell with monarchies.

First off all. I´m spanish.

I voted Aznar in the same way i voted zapatero in last elections. I DO NOT permit anyone call me fascist ´cause i´m not (and by the way, i hate them).

King Juan Carlos brought us democracy (you should read history), and he is more respected by socialists or communists than by conservatives in spain. he was just defending spaniards from the insults of a dictator, leftist but dictator.

He made Spain what it is today. He played Marcus Brutus, if you remember your Livy. He played dumb until he was on top after Franco's death. He had two aims: to make Spain a working democracy and to bring Spain back into normal relations with Europe. He succeeded amazingly. He is first Bourbon with a brain since Henry IV. Only he as Franco's heir, with the legitimacy only royalty can convey, could have done it. Royalty has its uses even in a modern, largely democratic world. For a nation that gave us the Inquisition, the auto-de-fe, and Opus Dei, to put the Church in its place as Spain has now done, is an amazing turnabout. Gays can marry in Spain!!

I am an American democrat in every sense of the word, but a pragmatic one. If someone who can trace his ancestry back to the Visigoths, Charles V, Louis XIV, and Queen Victoria, can be a force for good, then it is fine with me. He has not misused his position, and Spain is flourishing today. God save the King.

Not that it'll make any difference to the reflexive haters on the thread.

You must have a very special definition of legitimacy in hand.

I would call that "Asset-holder who most of Europe could assume to not be too much of a flake."

That's not a criticism of Chavez, but more of the whole "charismatic leader" thing that the traditional rulers (asset-holders) feel very threatened by.

And thanks for correcting the record. :hi:

He was talking about Aznar, who supported Bush in SLAUGHTERING HALF A MILLION INNOCENT PEOPLE to get their oil, and torturing prisoners God knows why--hundreds tortured for no reason. THAT is fascism. I'm sorry, but it is. Fascists believe in the rich and the corporate running the state, and are notorious for their atrocities and repression. Aznar may not have tortured you or anyone you know, or anybody at all, but he was fine with Bush doing it. He gave Bush critically important and whole-hearted support in these horrors.

As for your vote, I don't blame you for that. It's your right. It doesn't make you a fascist. We're all pretty powerless, as to our political leaders, these days, even in a country like Spain, which is more transparent than the U.S. and smaller. Will they be true to their word? Will they truly act in the interest of the people? Are they honest? Are they lining their own pockets? It's often very hard to tell, and often you're just guessing and hoping.

I do know the history of Spain, and Juan Carlos' role. But I was both glad for Spain when Franco died, and thankful for the return of democracy and for whatever role Juan Carlos' played (and I'm not really sure we can trust historical accounts), and somewhat dismayed that the monarchy was to be continued. And I think I DO understand monarchy, in a deep way--that is, the association of a monarch with the land, as a sort of psychological/spiritual protector of the people and of the fertility (prosperity) of the land they live on, are part of and belong to. I remember being really glad at the time, despite my dismay. Whatever it took, was my thinking--to put Franco and fascism away forever. But still I wonder why Spain needed that ancient connection to empire, and its associations with colonial oppression.

As for Juan Carlos telling Hugo Chavez to "shut up," that was way out of line. Juan Carlos wasn't elected by anybody, and lives as a parasite on the people of Spain. It would be like the Pope telling an elected president to "shut up." What nerve! Chavez represents many millions of people, and attends to their interests very well, indeed--with a 70% approval rating. Furthermore, he daily lives with threats against his life and his country by the shits in our White House whom Aznar chose to toady to. He had a right to call Aznar a fascist. It is the truth. I wish more politicians would do that--tell the truth!

Aznar supported bush in Iraq war against 90% of spaniards. At about 10 million people in spain (40 million people live here) went to a demonstration against this war ( i was there). That was the reason why aznar was not re-elected (the reason why i voted socialist)

I agree Juan Carlos was not appropriate telling chavez to shut up. Is the first time that Juan Carlos lost control ever... all spanish journalist are telling the same.

Chavez said aznar is a fascist. I voted him. He is calling me fascist. Actual government was supporting chavez, trying to drive him to the right way, and this is his answer.

Really, i think this unrepresentable, needed a kind public "punishment" like that.

:hi:

the history of Venezuela before posting such nonsense to discussion boards.

Just to help you out here, Zapatera is a socialist. Do continue now with your hero worship.

All hero worship make me :puke:

whom HE is contradicting and insulting? Zapatera could be God Almighty, for all I care. He was making a personal attack on a fellow socialist, and Chavez was moved to say something. The king had no business butting in, and you have to wonder what business interest he has that he would be so touchy. Invested in Exxon Mobile, is he? (Didn't a Spanish oil company have an interest in Venezuela? Maybe that was it. More money for the poor is less profit for the king? His rudeness makes me think on those lines.)

Look, this is a corporate press manipulation, and it's had the effect that its toady, little Reuters corporate shill writer was supposed to produce--making something out of nothing, and getting people all over the world at each other's throats, sighing in dismay at that (previously well-memed) "dictator" Chavez, or that rude King. What does this matter? It is meaningless--except that, once again, the corporate media accomplishes its purpose.

I've read the article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7089131.stm

According to this article, Chavez was being a jerk and interrupting people, as well as slinging out insults. He certainly could have done the latter (even though it's in bad form), but he didn't have the permission to do the former. He should have waited until it was his time to speak, instead of interrupting Zapatero's right of reply. Chavez was acting like an insulting, ad hominem-throwing troll, and the king smacked him down. Nothing to it, nothing to see here, I don't understand how this is a newsworthy story.

to be publicly insulted. I don't think so.

The reason this story is newsworthy is that Chavez is freaking out every corporate whore in the world. And he's going a great job of that.

Or is he in such a hurry with the Bolivarian Revolution that parliamentary procedure must be tossed out as well?

people who hero worship often are. and the chavistas at du are real case study. Fascinating to me. And sorry, I don't hate Chavez and think he's done some good things, but this constant whinging that it's all the press or the CIA or anything but Chavez boorish behavior or increasingly anti-democratic actions, is over the top.

Really, hero worship is not healthy. Quite often it leads bad places.

I say go for it Chavez-he's doing more for his people than any South American leader has done for decades. And the "King" of Spain covertly supported the fascist regime in Spain.

He should stick to opening garden fetes.

Chavez, and you are dead fucking wrong about Juan Carlos, who supported democracy. Nothing like ignorance.

knowing that he was Franco's pick for king.

Telling anyone to shut up is surely less than regal...

defend Chavez for interrupting. But you have a very simplistic view if that's all you think Juan Carlos did.

Does telling someone "you are dead fucking wrong" epitomise the sophisticate's approach?

JC king lost control, that´s right. And he was Franco´s pick, That´s also right.
And he legalize Communist Party in spain. And first democrat elections in spain after franco were thanks to JC. And he stopped the military coup in 1981. And some international leader (i thought it was mitterrand) said "he is the only socialist king i´ve ever met.
And he has driven spain from nothing to "something..." in a few years, just the opposite chavez is doing to venezuela.

If you can.

The claims made on these threads are hilarous.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Rey/Chavez/callas/elpepuint/20071110elpepuint_13/Tes

Chávez was certainly out of line, but the King was WAY out of line.

Chavez is flagrantly interrupting and refusing Zapatero's attempts to calm him down. The king was annoyed, made one line (without profanity, I remind you), and then that was it. It's not like some huge diplomatic gaffe was committed. If anything this just shows that Chavez was acting like a child, and the king was acting like an irritated parent.

It was up to Michelle Bachelet to ask Chávez to shut up, not anyone else.

Plus, may I remind you of the symbolism of a King of Spain asking a Latin American President to shut up? It is probably the first time in CENTURIES that a Spanish official has asked a Latin American politician to shut up, and probably it is the first time that KING asked a PRESIDENT to shut up. Spain's disastrous history in Latin America is not that easily forgotten by those who were affected by it.

Again, I think Chávez was out of line, and disrespectful to the President of the Government of Spain. But the King was even more out of line, it was not his role to do that.

Although, he would be saddened at the fascist turn that the US has taken...he would be amazed at Spain being a freeer country than the US! He got out of dodge after the Civil War....

Yes I agree that Chavez is an idiot. I totally agree with a lot of his ideas, how can you disagree with concepts like land reform in a place like Venezuela? But it seems, unfortunately, he is more interested in GWB style powermongering than truly helping the people.

What an asshole.

Chavez is the idiot that is trying to make sure everyone has food, medical care and education.

Fuckhead!

Chavez is the dork that put on literacy programs so the people could read their own Constitution.

He's gotta go -- especially now that he pissed off a king.

a buffoon, an asshole, an idiot. No one who reads Noam Chomsky and recommends his book to United Nations is an idiot. Chavez is NOT an idiot. He has outmaneuvered the Bush Junta. He has outmaneuvered Exxon-Mobile. He has outmaneuvered the whole rich, fascist ruling class in South America. He is forging bonds among all the Latin American countries--a thing that has not been tried since revolutionary hero Simon Bolivar--but which is desperately need to overcome the "divide and conquer" tactics of U.S. war/corporate profiteers--and he is doing so very successfully.

His proposal of a Bank of the South is now a reality, with five or six member countries, and it is driving the World Bank/IMF loan sharks out of the region. He has strong allies and friends throughout the continent--Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Nestor Kirchner (Argentina), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), Vasquez (Uruguay), and is working on Batchelet (Chile)--whom Condi Rice particularly pressured to keep Chile and Venezuela apart (typical "divide and conquer"). Venezuela has been voted into full membership in Mercosur (South American trade group), has formed a trade group of Bolivarian countries (ALBA), bailed Argentina out of ruinous World Bank debt (thus creating a healthy trading partner for itself, Brazil and other countries), has literally built a bridge to Brazil (the new Orinoco Bridge), has helped organize a multi-country gas pipeline, and has inspired talks about a South American "Common Market." Chavez has even managed to start peace talks between Colombia's rightwing government and FARC--and if he can solve THAT problem, he will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize--and remove one of the major excuses for U.S. military presence in South America. He has transformed Venezuela from a fascist/corporate-ruined state into a healthy democracy with a vibrant, mixed socialist/capitalist economy. All indicators are up--education, income, employment--with the PRIVATE sector showing the most growth. The oil wealth is being used to help the vast poor population. The Chavez government has built hundreds of new schools, medical and community centers, baseball fields and other facilities in poor areas never before served by government, and is funding the Bolivarian Youth Orchestra, which is teaching classical music to thousands of the poorest of poor children, and is being proclaimed throughout the world as putting on the best classical music performances--ever.

And the man who is the chosen leader for these amazing projects, who has been repeatedly elected by the people of Venezuela--with increasing margins, in highly transparent elections--and enjoys a 70% approval rating, is a "buffoon"??!!

An asshole. A loudmouth. An idiot.

Yes, I'm beginning to think it's racist, or classist. I don't understand these epithets. He was not polite in a meeting--and DUers call him a "loudmouth" and a "buffoon" and dismiss him as an "idiot"?

Does it not occur to you that there was a class problem in that room--that Spain was the colonial master that slew millions of indigenous indians and that created a culture that excludes the poor and the brown, to this day?

Chavez was poor as child. And he is brown. And he represents a whole lot of poor brown people--the vast majority in South America. And he did not show sufficient deference and politeness to the leaders of Spain. Oh, dear.

Maybe he had a bad hair day. We all have them. Maybe he was just informed of another Bushite death threat against him. Maybe something else was going on--re: Spain's oil corporation, or rich Spaniards' investment in the World Bank exploitation (Juan Carlos?), or Spanish socialists' defensiveness about Spain's support of the horrible Iraq War, or anger at OPEC's pushing up of oil prices (benefiting OPEC countries, including Venezuela--and not Spain), or I don't know what. There are a hundred explosive issues that could have gotten under Chavez's skin, causing him to be rude, and the King of Spain to be rude as well.

But to heap abuse on Chavez for this angry or irritated exchange indicates MORE passionate anger or resentment about him than is warranted by the situation. And the stupidity of the some of the anti-Chavez comments in this thread points further to racial or class PREJUDICE. Racial or class prejudice OFTEN exhibits itself this way--with words like "buffoon" and "loudmouth." Labor organizers have been called names like this--by the ruling elites who exploit labor. Black civil rights leaders have been called names like this--by white bigots. Gandhi was called names like this--by the British upper classes. Because labor organizers and civil rights leaders are sometimes not polite. They speak truths that their oppressors don't want to hear. And they sometimes have to shout to be heard; and they often--often!--despise the rules of polite discourse that are used to muffle the truth.

In this case, that Aznar is a fascist. We really don't know what the undercurrents were at this meeting--and I don't know what else Zapatero was saying. Maybe it wasn't so much about Aznar, but something else that is in dispute between Spain and its former colonies.

No, Chavez is not polite, on some occasions. He called Bush "the Devil." That's a no-no at ever-so-polite UN meetings. (The diplomats smiled and applauded, however--and the remark got roars of laughter all over South America.) Yeah, Chavez is a bit of clown, but to call him a "buffoon" and an "idiot" are just plain, demonstrably wrong. Way, way off the mark. So wrong that you've got to wonder where it's coming from.

It is itself stupid and idiotic to call Chavez an "idiot." And anyone who thinks that is not paying attention to events in South America. You may not like Chavez's style, or his color, or his occasional rudeness, but you have to give him credit for leading a peaceful, democratic revolution that is totally transforming South America in a positive way--to the betterment of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people--that has not been seen in a hundred and fifty years, and, really, has not been seen ever before on that continent. It is momentous. He didn't create it by himself. Nor is he the only leader of it, by any means. But his intelligence, and his shrewdness in the Bolivarian cause, are beyond question. And to dismiss him with epithets is very stupid and brainless, indeed.

It's like dismissing a poor, dirty, illiterate, little street child in Caracas as being incapable of playing Beethoven at all, let alone playing Beethoven the way it was meant to be played--as if your life depended on it.

That kind of prejudice. That dirty little street child is now conducting the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra. Assholes.

And Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela. And brown-faced guys, also exhibiting brilliant leadership, are presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador. These leaders may not be white, and may not have had upper-class educations (two of them), and may not feel comfortable in the country club atmosphere of global politics, but they have been smart--very smart--in everything they have done. And they are clearly leading South America into an era of prosperity, social justice and democracy like it has never seen before. And, indeed, millions of poor, brown-faced people have created this remarkable revolution, and the leaders to lead it. Is it Hugo Chavez whom these DU posters despise, or THEM?

No one is getting personal. The point is, Chavez behaved rudely and uncontrollably during a diplomatic summit, rebuffed attempts to calm him done, and the king made one snippy line. That's it. End of story.

But, nice try.

It's okay if we put Bush down but not if some little brown guy who grew up in a mud hut and speaks that funny language does. (Chavez is assertive, intelligent and has a great sense of humor -- qualities that are largely invisible, it seems, to most Americans. He reminds me of my very favorite uncle whom everyone depended on to get a party started. He was also an international chess master and was individually tasked with resolving Diablo Canyon. I miss you, papi.)

And yes, in my heart of hearts, it does seem to be about class and race and knee jerk distrust of the Other.

Most posters to this thread don't know that Chavez is not playing to them but to Venezuela -- where he just earned points for not allowing himself to be publicly criticized. (They also don't understand that there are cultural differences in matters of courtesy, style and self presentation, but, let's not go there.)

I am thinking His Majesty should be thanked for pulling Venezuela together in defense of the leader they chose. It was a most propitious moment for him to do that. :evilgrin:

The Prime Minister should be able to handle the situation by himself. Otherwise, the PM should be replaced.

His Majesty is hilarious.

lol

as I said, hero worship is not healthy.

or the perfectly legitimate form of government called parliamentary monarchy.

The king was hardly lecturing. He just told Chavez to shut up when Chavez was constantly interrupting Zapatero in order to sling insults.

The Brits, the Japanese, the Monacans, Danes, Dutch, Norweigeans, Jordanians, Luxembourgians, Swedes, Thai, not to mention every freakin' member of the Commonwealth of Nations...

But granting a monarch "legitimacy" while discounting a democratically elected leader is a strange position for a liberal to hold, to say the least.

A speaker at a summit was being rude and interruptive and someone else there briefly told him to shut up. The speaker just happened to be the president of Venezuela, and the someone else just happened to be the king of Spain. It's almost like a joke.

And, it will be a good a thing for Mr. Chavez back home because his constituency will appreciate him standing up for himself and for them.

Yes, somebody posted in another thread that perhaps it was something polite, that tone and gestures might "soften" it. HAH!1 I just saw it on Univision, and the King-a-ding-ding was totally PISSED and leaned forward out of the row of peeps to say it to CHAVEZ face to face. Some English language descriptions are saying it was the words and tone "used (in anger) WITH CHILDREN." On the tape, the dude said, "?Por que no TE CALLAS?!" (Why don't you SHUT UP?! with the familiar TU (te), not the formal usted.)

*******QUOTE*******

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/071111/photos_wl_afp/fd45723e5aa671579fa43f92b68ef894



Spain's King Juan Carlos (R) shouts at Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, "Why don't you shut up?" after Chavez interrupted the speech of Spanixh President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero(L), on the last day of the XVII





A combination photo shows Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speaking during a speech at the closing session of the XVII Ibero-American Summit (right photo) and Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero (L)

********UNQUOTE*******

It makes no sense for him to be participant in a serious discussion. The circus would be a more appropriate venue for him.

There may be many DU members who admire Fidel Castro and hopes that Chavez does for Venezuala what Castro has done for Cuba but I'm certainly not one of them.

Democracy is more than who you look out for--it is rule by and for the people--and this will always, in my books, mean competing ideologies and the right to choose, on the part of the people, the direction of their own country.

and thought.

:hi:

Dream On.

fantastic!!!

I used to post a lot of LBN, but now just do the occasional item. As the OP for this item, I thought this was one of those interesting (but minor) political anecdotes-in-the-making. I'm amazed at the degree to which people have strong feelings about one side or the other. That's what I like about DU - I always learn something new.

because Chavez made a very valid point about who was a fascist. And look at those who run to the king's rescue. Hahahahaha....

Funny how this article leaves THAT part out. Intentionally of course....

I am sorry, I do not agree. The people of Spain did indeed choose a fascist Franquist to head their government. That is true. But it is totally acceptable to politically critique the fascist Franquist. Zapatero is a million times better than Aznar, and I know he had little choice but to say something given his political position. But I agree with the Spanish United Left party, which opposes the "king's" intervention into the political realm. Monarchism is not good, and where it exists should be removed absolutely from politics.

I absolutely agree. This is what Chavez said that right before "his majesty" deigned to bellow his "shut up" comment. I understand there may be some sensitivity given the "king's" roots in fascism. I am certainly glad the "king" broke largely broke with his political roots and allowed liberal democracy, but I think his old incarnation appeared for a moment.

demonizing "evil" does nothing but place it into some undecipherable realm, where the light of reason never reaches. Not good. Remarks like Chavez' do nothing to dispel this ignorance. Fascism is, alas, all too human. Please read some Hannah Arendt

and remember Arendt's commentary about evil: it's a human failing, not a superhuman or demonic one. I take it by your oneliner that you feel incapable of actually addressing the point i was making.

I think she was pointing out that average people follow orders and do evil things.

Do you really believe she was cautioning people against saying that evil people are bad?

And how do you think this all relevant?

Do you think that pointing out that Aznar's political philosophy comes from lineage that directly descends from fascism is demonizing him? Or do you think saying fascism is bad is demonizing fascism? Is it sort of just stating a fact?

taking human the capacity to do evil and casting it as something outside of the range of human actions and failings. And what Chavez was doing was exactly that. Saying fascism is bad is not what he was doing. And yes, it is a fact that fascism is bad, but again, that's not what he said. I think language is chiefly how we communicate, so yes, I think it's relevant to discuss someones use of rhetoric.

running in Europe as commentary during the time Aznar blessed the world with his presence as a Spanish leader. No mystery there.

Venezuela Defends Chavez After Spat With Spanish King
By Michael Bowman
Washington
11 November 2007

~snip~
In Caracas Sunday, Vice President Jorge Rodriguez suggested the Spanish monarch may have forgotten that Latin America achieved its independence from Spain long ago, and said the king's words were "unacceptable".

He said, "Mr. Juan Carlos can treat his subjects in that fashion if they permit him to do so. But we Venezuelans are a free and sovereign people constructing our own future. No one can speak vulgar words to deny Venezuela's chief of state the right to speak. Nothing and no one will ever silence him (Chavez)."

President Chavez has long criticized former Prime Minister Aznar for joining with the United States in the 2003 invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. The current Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, also opposed Spain's participation in the Iraq campaign. But, speaking at the summit, he reminded Mr. Chavez that his predecessor was legitimately elected by the people of Spain -- and deserved to be spoken of with respect.
(snip)

For his part, the Venezuelan leader has downplayed the controversy. Speaking with reporters, Mr. Chavez said he did not hear King Juan Carlos' outburst at the time. Mr. Chavez added that he never meant for his choice of words to offend anybody at the summit, but that he stood by those words nonetheless.
(snip/)

http://voanews.com/english/2007-11-11-voa25.cfm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071111/wl_nm/spain_venezuela_dc

Did any sources get what the man on the street in Venezuela think or said on the incident?
ie, the students on the college campus ;) vs the undercover govt workers take

Your hate for Spaniards blinds you to the truth. Chavez is milking this episode for all its worth. Thank God I get TVE on my cable and see and hear the truth.

His Highness at the Summit

Hot-blooded, cold-blooded and blue-blooded

If you are part of a noble lineage, or so consider yourself, you can be hot-blooded, cold-blooded … or both things at the same time. For the rest of us who are often told that we travel on this earth on borrowed time, put on this earth to give added shine to the star of the blue-blooded, we are also allowed to be hot-blooded or cold-blooded, but only to a point; what is unquestionably forbidden is to rub elbows with the blue-blooded.

Mr. Chávez… can we ask you where you left your manners? The King of Spain can say "shut-up" to anyone that royally pleases him, but that doesn't mean you can rub elbows with him, or for you to dare put him at the level of Bolivia's "Indian" Morales. The throne has always been placed higher so that we can all see the monarch, even if "pygmies." Well, let's put aside our sarcasm and go on!

The truth is that it's about time that we hang our cojones between our legs (males, that is!) instead of putting them in storage, replacing them for manners that are irrelevant, and which in this 21st century are archaic if not absurd. Royalty has reached the end of that rope we call obsolescence and, truth be said, the memories are not very pleasant. The Spanish people, in their variety of Iberian nations, already said what had to be said back in April 1931, when they gave King Alfonso XIII a hand in packing for good his royal luggage. It was Franco who returned Spain to the monarchy with his drafted succession law put into a referendum of dubious validity in 1947, giving it a tone of fidelity and putting Franco as regent, regency that would add another 28 years to his dictatorship.

And, as truth would have it, Don Juan Carlos I, even if one of the Bourbon dynasty, for those who firmly believe that the monarchy is a political aberration these days, the Spanish sovereign is just Franco's heir. Although there are those who credit the king with helping maintain peace and democracy in Spain, be it true or not, it is something that is likely being way overplayed. Let's give Spaniards proper credit for both their humanity and intelligence. Spain needs only to respect, and symbolically bow to, its constitution, and nothing or no one else.
(snip)

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18015/26/

Some of us eschew it wherever it comes from, but for those afflicted with a terminal case of hero worship... it's another matter entirely.

...you do realize that Elizabeth II is still officially the Sovereign Monarch of that country, right?

Cold day, hot tempers in Iberian American Summit
Posted : Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:32:04 GMT

Santiago - Cold day, hot tempers and a ranchera. There was a little for everyone on Friday in the second day of the Iberian American Summit in Santiago.

Formal speeches were devoted to social cohesiveness, but the eloquence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the crisis between Argentina and Uruguay stole the show.

The day started with Chavez, known for adding colour to international gatherings, arrived in the Chilean capital singing a ranchera.

"As the song says, I am no golden coin to please everyone. I was born like this, and I am like this. I cannot do anything about those who do not like me," Chavez sang.

The song was a message to his detractors, amid street protests in Venezuela and foreign criticism over a constitutional reform proposed by Chavez and set to be put to a referendum.
(snip)

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/139560.html

His ego is bigger than Bush's

Fuck that noise.

....the only problem is he has access to guns and won't hesitate to use them to continue his thuggery.

You need to provide some information we can all read, in order to appreciate your claim.

BUT HE WEARS RED!!!

:rofl:

Come on now... I'm not a "fan boi" of Chavez, but I've yet to see him do anything cruel to his people. While do think there is room for debate on what his ultimate intentions may be, but I don't see any cases of him doing anything different than what every other world leader does when it comes to dealing with protesters and disent.