Tink, from the videos posted here on Solved recently, I may have been giving Chavez too much credit; I had the impression he truly had the well-being of his constituency at heart. So I located a BBC news article, and still uncertain...apparently he was after socialism? I read that the Venezuelan government had been a democracy since 1958, which seemed to fall apart ala rather Marxian predictions
"Since then, Mr Chavez has won a series of elections and referendums, including one in 2009 which abolished term limits for all elected officials, including the president. President Chavez argues that he needs more time for Venezuela's socialist revolution to take root. His supporters say he speaks for the poor; his critics say he has become increasingly autocratic."
So, BBC is not taking much of a stand just gives both sides. if you would care to take this on, I would be interested to know your thoughts as to whether Chavez was actually more of a power-mad tinhorn dictator vs. a well-meaning charismatic but just incompetent?
From this article, I could easily be persuaded to consider the following idea...'Relations with Washington reached a new low when he (i.e., Chavez) accused the Bush administration of "fighting terror with terror" during the war in Afghanistan after 11 September 2001.'