Hugo Chávez and I worked together for many years. I supported him through thick and thin, serving as his defense minister. But now, having recently retired, I find myself with the moral and ethical obligation as a citizen to express my opposition to the changes to the Constitution that President Chávez and the National Assembly have presented for approval by the voters tomorrow.

The proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar, the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state absolute control over the people it governs.

Um, Chavez kind of ran on a socialist platform, and hasn’t really wavered in that. Baduel supported Chavez’s goals for several years. Chavez hasn’t changed, Baduel has.

While still on Chavez’s side, Baduel sounded more worried about U.S. involvement in Venezuela as subverting democracy:

Q: The assassination of the president [by the U.S.]: an option?

A: The news is the possibility of an assassination in Venezuela.
We have analyzed the present scenario, in which our process is being developed and we are convinced assassination is an option the United States might use. Maybe, it is the only option they have not applied in a context in which all possible resources have been used to damage the Security and the Defense of the country.

Q: What are the other options [the U.S] have applied or that they are still applying?

A: First, “the fourth generation war.” In the future, when we analyze what happened in our country since 1999 we’ll see more clearly that we suffered from this kind of war encouraged and financed by the United States...

Back to today’s op-ed, the 'new' Baduel continues:

Venezuela will thrive only when all its citizens truly have a stake in society. Consolidating more power in the presidency through insidious constitutional reforms will not bring that about.

Assuming he hasn’t been paid for his words, because the Bush Administration has been known to throw some money around for “pro-democracy” propaganda in Venezuela, a fact rarely mentioned in the MSM, I agree with Baduel.

I’ll even go further: Chavez said that you would have to be a traitor to vote against the proposed changes. I condemn that. That type of rhetoric sounds a lot like another chief executive talking about a certain war on terrorism.

But let’s take a deep breath and put this coverage in perspective: What’s undermines democracy more? A foreign country financing dissidents or the citizens of the country voting on a Constitutional amendment?

And there’s more hypocrisy involved.

I acknowledge I have never stepped in the country myself. It seems to me however, as an outsider, that term limits are always a preferred option. Unlike many who call the democratically elected Chavez a dictator, though, I am consistent in this view. It is ludicrous that we have Senators and Representatives who can run for re-election well into their 90s. Does that make the U.S. less than fully democratic? I think ultimately it does, but are Chavez’s American critics pointing this out? We also had no term limits for the Presidency for about, what 160 years or so? Has Venezuela’s democracy been around for 160 years? So, yeah, I apologize for not hyperventilating.

This all really comes down to oil. I just wish they would come out and say it already.

Crossposted at Worldwide Sawdust and the Liberal Journal