Belafonte Calls Bush Terrorist

[gr8fuldaniel]

ABC News

CARACAS, Venezuela Jan 8, 2006 — The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday and attended his television and radio broadcast on Sunday. "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people … support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast. The 78-year-old Belafonte, famous for his calypso-inspired music, including the "Day-O" song, was a close collaborator of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and is now a UNICEF goodwill ambassador. He also has been outspoken in criticizing the U.S. embargo of Cuba. Chavez said he believes deeply in the struggle for justice by blacks, both in the U.S. and Venezuela. MORE..........

No sense beating around the "bush"

[Clarence]

It's good to see someone saying something

I predict that it will be made a race issue by sensationalists like Bill O'reilly in order to undermine the importance of it. This, in reality, seems like a very big deal. I don't necessarily support any 'revolution'. But I like that some people have taken a public stance which could open even more americans up to the necessity for immediate change. I just worry that this Hugo Chavez is an opportunist. I honestly have no educated opinion on him. He seems all right from what I've heard. I just want him to understand that this revolution he speaks of is for his country not mine. If he wants to help us get good people back in office that won't meddle in South American affairs, that's great and noble of him. If he's trying to get the world to speak out against these criminals in our gov't, great. If he has plans for the United States that involve a departure from the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights...he's got another thing coming.

[Apeman81]

Well, if a Belafonte says it, we must listen.

[Zeebadee]

Now if he could just put that message to a calypso beat....... Bush-o.... bu u u ush-o.....daylight come and we want the troops home..... then maybe people would listen.

[SteveA]

Does anyone else see the total hypocracy surrounding Chavez?

(I'll go ahead and assume that the news reports of Hugo Chavez being a representative of left-wing government policies is accurate)

Chavez is also a government leader, like Bush. He claims to represent the people of Venezuela, just as Bush is attempting to create a U.S. founded government in Iraq representing Iraqies.

Mr. Chavez also is attempting to claim leadership of a country in turmoil. I'm certain many people there would likely view his ideologies as being partly the cause of this turmoil. He uses force and the political means to rule over others, despite social unrest, in the same manner that he blames the U.S. of trying to rule over Iraqies. Chavez has seen 4 national strikes under his watch, just as Bush and Co. have seen greater amounts of terrorism and even a global increase of them (especially if you include attacks on U.S. troops) under their watch.

Bush claims to have a mandate by "the people" in the U.S., just as Mr. Chavez claims to represent "the people" of Venezuela. Isn't it entirely understandable that anyone attempting to claim to represent everyone in an area is almost doomed to find disputes over this claim? Both of these leaders truly represent select motivated groups within an area that seek to dominate over others and thus political conflict is born. I can practically guarantee (though have no personal knowledge) that Chavez is also claiming to be bringing the benefits of at least democracy, if not even freedom, to the people of Venezuela (via. police or military forces), just like Bush.

I could go on but it doesn't at all surprise me at all that Bush and Co. have given left-wing idealogies kindling to throw on the fire. Bush himself has allowed the growth of more left wing institutions in the U.S. under his watch, so providing an excuse for other leftists to claim that misrepresented right wing ideas fail seems to live down to my expectations of this administration.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: SteveA He uses force and the political means to rule over others, despite social unrest, in the same manner that he blames the U.S. of trying to rule over Iraqies.

Every head of state uses force and politcal means to rule. The big difference, of course, is that Chavez is at home, while Bush is not.

[tinybear]

What? "Millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez"? Where did he get this info from?

[SteveA]

Quote by: tinybear What? "Millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez"? Where did he get this info from?

I agree it would be interesting to know how this claim was justified but I don't doubt it's true.

We've got probably 10 times as many vegetarians though ... so does it really mean much?

I don't know much about Chavez but it seems like (assuming the general information is accurate) he's another wannabe communist dictator. Then again, sadly, it's tough to know what's propaganda or not, or based on stereotypical assumptions. The fact that it seems there are plenty of article regarding social unrest in Venezuela doesn't speak well for him. How much truth is there to the claims that this unrest is promoted by outside involvement?

I guess I pay less attention to these things because they don't seem to directly affect me but I'd almost guarantee that whether or not the current government in Venezuela is causing a lot of the grief, or they result from outside pressures, it's still the result of people fighting for power. Imagine if no real legitimate government were even recognized there. How much of this conflict would disappear simply because there would be no effective way to rule over the country without expending many more resources doing it? Imagine as well if there was greater popular support for rejecting any such claims of automatic authority over them. Why would people fight for control over a population that didn't support being centrally controlled by anyone? Obviously someone might try to bring a military and subdue everyone but that's costly and is only possible when there's a net gain. You can't run a military on empty gas tanks and soldiers tend to have shorter life spands. So the only real motivation behind a lot of political conflicts are the people that continue to accept being ruled by whatever person claims to happen to be leader at the time as this provides reinforcement and motivation to continue making these claims.

For example, if a new global agency were created that claimed to have "legitimate authority" (whatever that means ... I guess that would mean they have access in some manner to police/military forces) to control all international trade, what would stop the first agency to make such a claim from quickly gaining such control if everyone instantly fell for this idea and decided to go along with it? And then why wouldn't those people make another agency and call it the Global Food Distribution Agency? If everyone fell for the first idea with few costs, and large rewards, why not do the same thing for food, housing, jobs etc. etc. etc. Maybe we could just get it over with and call it the Global Slave Trade ... or could we stomach that one yet? It would take some time building up the necessary military resources to enforce that one, I'm certain but if you're already halfway enslaved, the remaining half is easier to give up. So starting with global trade and food distribution agencies would be a great start toward a global slave trade.

[tinybear]

Really? Look, if you support Chavez's goal of world socialist revolution, you gotta support socialism in the USA, right? After all, the world includes the USA, right? Now, how many in America supports this, I wonder?

[Polish/English]

All American leaders have been corrupt and stupid and most of them supported (the American government still does) support kkk and the other rascist groups. So someone (British, Iranians, Russians or Chinese) should invade America and form the original Native nations once again. And split other territory between other nations to prevent America ever being a nation again. Good on this fellow who calls Bush a terrorist.

[Mr.Vicchio]

That an enternainer said it, says everything. Belafonte is a fruitcake, Glover has shown he's just as out of touch with reality. Who CARES what people like them have to say? That's like reading Striesands web blog and hanging on her every word as holy writ.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: SteveA Does anyone else see the total hypocracy surrounding Chavez? <snip> Chavez is also a government leader, like Bush. He claims to represent the people of Venezuela, just as Bush is attempting to create a U.S. founded government in Iraq representing Iraqies.

Chavez would be a hypocrite if he bombed Washington DC, with the same joy as W did in bombing Iraq in March 2003. Would that be considered a terrorist action? What if Chavez's intentions were noble? That he wanted to purge our dictator and establish democracy. He could use slogans like "Freedom is on the march" instead of rational reasoning, to justify the invasion. Chavez could have occupied the White House (for our own good) and warned American citizens not to burn the oil wells.

Then he would be a hypocrite.

Quote by: Clarence If he has plans for the United States that involve a departure from the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights...he's got another thing coming.

He has never spoken against America, only against those who abuse the power entrusted to them. Bush is a terrorist, he is currently showing OBL, exactly how to terrorize. OBL is a punk kid compared to bush. 911 was milked for its "Shock and Awe", while our media is gagged to report our own terrorism on Iraqi and Afghan citizens. Bush is no better than OBL, except when it comes to terrorism.

Quote by: MrV That an enternainer said it, says everything. Belafonte is a fruitcake,

Shoot the messenger, even if the news rings true, but uncomfortable.

[Osborn F Enready]

I had to laugh when hearing about Bellafonte.

I could give a damn about Bellafonte or his thoughts, but when he made news for the statement about Bush, I had to give him the nod on that one.

As Daniel said, don't villify the messenger, or his industry, just because he chooses to speak a painful truth.

As far as Mr Polish/English, I have to say HA! Prove your words, lest you be judged as a unfounded boobie. I do not dispute ALL that you say, just most.

[Apeman81]

With other threads being moved around for content, I wonder just how suitable this one is to be called news?
Whatever.
Funny part is that fare more learned men have made comment but this entertainer gets the air time. A sad commentary on the thought processes of many among us.

[Mr.Vicchio]

If the words of Belefonte ring true for you, I have to wonder about your grasp of reality.

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: Apeman81 Well, if a Belafonte says it, we must listen.

. . . or . . . :rolleyes:

. . . and he lives where?

IF this is SOOOOOO bad ...

WHY doesn't he live there?

[Osborn F Enready]

Apeman81 said:
Funny part is that fare more learned men have made comment but this entertainer gets the air time. A sad commentary on the thought processes of many among us.

I say:
That is the ironic part also I feel. Many well spoken, well read, well educated folks have spoke out the exact same sentiment, but you only hear that on C-Span, since the major media focuses on trends and propaganda.

Vic said:
If the words of Belefonte ring true for you, I have to wonder about your grasp of reality.

I say:
Yes, they ring quite true, and as far as my grasp of reality, it is all based in the only reality of law in this nation, which is in the Constitution, which Bush terrorizes daily.

Slanted Facts said:
. . and he lives where?

I say:
Right here in the U.S. I believe.

Slanted Facts said:
IF this is SOOOOOO bad ...

WHY doesn't he live there?

I say:
Because we are a free, open society, that allows and ENCOURAGES freedom of speech, as well as freedom of expression, whether political or not.

Why do you live here? Just because you are a sheeple blind loyalist, or because you were born here? I would bet because you were born here, and that the sheeple part is optional.(Not saying you are a sheeple, but you seem to think everyone that actually lives here SHOULD be sheeple, from your statment)

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel ABC News No sense beating around the "bush"

Let me preface my writing here by stating that I could care less what Mr Bellefonte has to say about President Bush who could probably care less what Mr Bellefonte blathers on about in Venzuela. He has his 1st Amendmend right to say them. However, I think he has made several mistakes that reflect back upon him in a negative manner.

First. He is a representative of UNICEF. This will reflect badly upon UNICEF to ordinary Americans and probably will affect the donations made to UNICEF by those Americans. Last year American citizens donated about $270 million to UNICEF, so it will remain to be seen how this type of behavior will affect this year's donations. Furthermore, since UNICEF is tied to the UN, it may have a backlash against the view of the ordinary American that the UN is undermining American foreign policy. That policy, be it right or wrong is meaningless because this may affect the way some Americans view the particiaption of the US in the matters concerning the UN. My personal view is that I welcome this. I oppose the US participation in a UN that is influenced by nations that only care to take money from the US. This money is better alllocated in the US to solve a myriad of domestic problems.

Second: He lives the lifestyle that has been acheived through Capitalism and he seems to be now praising the wonderful aspects of Socialism. I have no problem with his support of self determination of the Venezuelans, if that is what happened down there. However, it is my understanding that almost 75% of the voting public stayed away from the election that elected Chavez. Perhaps this is not an accurate figure, I don''t know. In any event, I am for self detrermination. Mr Bellefonte's statement paints him as a hypocrite in the difference between acheiving his success in a Capitalist society and now he champions Socialism. Seems to me to be a bit at odds with each other in theory.

Third. I think he made a poor choice of words. Even if GWB can be labled a terrorist, perhaps then, so too can the argument be made that other presidents who conducted illegal wars, if that is what he bases his definition upon, can be painted with same brush. It is perhaps the definition of "terrorist" that I think has embarrassed himself and caused consternation and resentment among "ordinary" Americans.

4) Many Hollywood types open their mouths and make controversial statements. This is nothing new. Ask Linda Rohnstadt, the Dixie Chicks, or Alex Baldwin. These are just people, no better than anyone else, expressing their opinion. It should be taken for what it is worth, and in the context of which, the statement is made. In Bellefonte's case, it was just some hype that offends some and leads others to believe that he has some intelligence on the matter that perhaps the ordinary citizen lacks. I personally dont think Mr Bellefonte is privy to anything in the State Department that the ordinary citizen doesn't understand. Besides, most people believe what suits their ideology anyway.

5) The rethoric of extreme statements does nothing to foster peace around the world. I don't care if it originates in Washington DC or in Caracass Venezuela.

[Boetie]

Bush Jr's style of governing is to turn everything upside down and see what happens and you guys think that is worth listening to?

Junior doesn't govern. He just lets things go to crap and makes up excuses as he goes along.

[tinybear]

The guy goes to Venezuela and praises the President of Venezuela. Yeah, yeah, so are we surprised?