“Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy. You can debate whether [Venezuela’s] circumstances require it: internal circumstances and the external threat of attack, that’s a legitimate debate. But my own judgment in that debate is that it does not,” said Chomsky.
This blog’s determined shibboleth of being registered anti Chavez (and the Bolivarian Revolution) — amazes me. Any chance on offer to denigrate the happenings in Venezuela, Bob will run with it unconditionally.No questions asked. If it isn’t the economy or Hugo’s craziness it’s the ready “dictatorship” (voted in with much more democracy than imaginable in Obama’s bailiwick) .
The background to the judge’s case is a little different from the selective quote taken from Chomsky — http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5275 — and the role of Chavez in that country is complex and doesn’t lend itself to the shallow rulings offered here: See Venezuela: To Support it, Critically Support it, or not Support it? http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6273 for an excellent review of the personality politics that warp the Venezuelan process. As far as I am aware, Chomsky, unlike Politics in the Zeroes, supports the Venezuelan project.
And as usual you see Chavez as inerrant. Here’s the transcript. Chomsky said what I quoted
CHOMSKY SLAMS GUARDIAN FOR â€œEXTREME DISHONESTYâ€ OVER VENEZUELA
Yes, and the Guardian responded by printing the interview verbatim. Where’s the dishonesty since what they printed was what Chomsky said