NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Hugo Chavez' address to the UN Wednesday left no doubt in any sane person's mind that his hatred for America runs deep and wide. IMHO, he's leading his country down a path that will eventually ruin it economically, and now he's wanting others to follow the same path. It's suicidal. And of course the Democratic Left applauded the denunciation of their own Country. That also is suicidal. I often find myself wondering what possesses such people.


Muted Reaction to Hugo Chavez's Outburst (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200609/NAT20060921b.html)


By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Reaction to Hugo Chavez's Bush-bashing tirade at the United Nations on Wednesday drew little or no response in most quarters, except for liberal Democratic blogs, where cheers for Chavez dominated the discourse.

The Venezuelan president, addressing the U.N. General Assembly, insulted President Bush personally -- and repeatedly.

"The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday," Chavez said as he made the sign of the cross. "Yesterday, the devil came here -- right here, right here -- and it smells of sulfur still today," he added, drawing laughter from other U.N. delegates.

The attack went on: Chavez accused Bush of wanting to take over the world, and he suggested the president needs psychiatric help.

Later Wednesday, in a speech at a New York City college (Cooper Union), Chavez received a standing ovation from faculty, students and others when he accused President Bush of committing genocide in Iraq.

"The president of the United States should go before an international tribunal" (for war crimes), Chavez said.

On Thursday, major newspapers carried reports about Chavez's Bush-bashing, but most did not include reaction from Members of Congress, Democrat or Republican.

The Boston Globe was among the exceptions. It reported that Chavez's remarks "prompted a rebuke" from one of Chavez's "closest friends in Congress" -- U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who helped negotiate a deal with Chavez in which Venezuela offers discounted heating oil to tens of thousands of Boston-area residents.

Delahunt called Chavez's comments "silly" and "inappropriate," the Boston Globe said. But according to the newspaper, "Delahunt asserted that the Bush administration's foreign policy deserves some blame for fostering a climate where a world leader could offer such strident denunciations of the American president in front of the General Assembly."

Delahunt is quoted as saying that he will continue working with Chavez to bring cheap heating oil to Boston's poor people again this year.

In its report, the New York Times offered the following understatement: "Mr. Chavez's remarks were translated from Spanish, and while subtleties can sometimes be lost in translation, his feelings about the United States seemed to come through clearly enough."

Good for Chavez

"Who was offended by the Chavez remarks about Bush?" asked the Democratic Underground website.

"I laughed by @ss off and called my Mom so she could laugh, too," wrote one respondent. Other comments: "If others respected our president, it would never have happened." "I'm offended by anyone who was offended by what Chavez said." And so on.

A number of Democrats also have said derogatory things about President Bush. Last year, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called Bush a "loser" before a group of high school students. "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said, adding, "I think this guy is a loser." Reid later called the White House to apologize.

And Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) -- criticizing President Bush for his response to Hurricane Katrina last year -- told the Congressional Black Caucus, "George Bush is our Bull Connor." Connor, a former police commissioner in Birmingham, Ala., ordered his troops to attack civil rights marchers with dogs and fire hoses during a demonstration in 1963.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wouldn't dignify Chavez's remarks with a comment, but she did call the remarks "unbecoming for a head of state."

John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, dismissed Chavez's "insulting" comments, calling them a "comic-strip approach to international affairs."

And of course the Democratic Left applauded the denunciation of their own Country. That also is suicidal.
Ddenunciation of their president. Not their country.

Chavez's Bush-bashing tirade

People in the US have been calling Bush the devil for about 6 years, already, why is Chavez not allowed to join in? He only wants to be accepted by all the cool kids, is that so wrong?

I see nothing about a verbal attack on America. Unless Bush is America, which he is not.

Oh, and you failed to mention that a Democratic senator spoke against what Chavez said.

People in the US have been calling Bush the devil for about 6 years, already, why is Chavez not allowed to join in? He only wants to be accepted by all the cool kids, is that so wrong?

Hehehe ya i guess so. But in America we dont associate him with the devil no no no. In America he is a monkey.

Actually, he called America "imperialist" and claimed that he would go to war with us.

And he is a back stepping asshole. He has delivered less than 1/8 of the oil he promised to the poor of this country and his own poor are still living in crippling poverty.

And the same people here and on TV who will run to defend Chavez's actions this week also jump on Bush for the spectacle he makes of himself in front of other world leaders.

<snip>

Ok i think Chavez is an itiot to but what is this typical right wing crap associating him with Castro. Castro isnt really that bad of a dictator better than the ones in Saudia Arabia which we will deal with because they arent communist and have oil. Please, the next castro? where do you right wingers come up with this crap. The only reason we hate Castro so much is because he went communist in our hemisphere something almighty America never though possible with all our power.

And of course the Democratic Left applauded the denunciation of their own Country.

or the imperialistic policies thereof. a tricky distinction, i know.

Actually, he called America "imperialist" and claimed that he would go to war with us.well, we are. And I didn't see that anywhere in the article that Eut posted.

And he is a back stepping asshole. He has delivered less than 1/8 of the oil he promised to the poor of this country and his own poor are still living in crippling poverty. Do you have any source for that? As far as I knew, he only promised oil to MA, and delivered with that wonderfully.

And the same people here and on TV who will run to defend Chavez's actions this week also jump on Bush for the spectacle he makes of himself in front of other world leaders.

no, I'll attack bush for being an asshole. He rarely makes a spectacle out of himself. He just says "we're gon git yew"

Chavez has been the next Castro for a while. When the world expects an anti-American rampage they turn to Chavez. Castro has quietened down significantly, and in many ways he is a bit of a Cold War relic.

The way the liberals appluaded at Chavez's comment of "genocide" was disgusting, frankly. However, I can't see Chavez ever replacing Castro -- a more likely candidate is Hillary Clinton after she loses her presidential bid.

The U.S. doesn't use inflammatory language about other world leaders? Besides, while not a devil Bush is hardly on the side of the angels.

I see nothing about a verbal attack on America. Unless Bush is America, which he is not.

Oh, and you failed to mention that a Democratic senator spoke against what Chavez said.

Well, excuuuuse the FRACK out of me! What I said stands, regardless of how the leftists on here try to spin it. Chavez is an embarassment to his country and is going to eventually destroy it. He's also obviously anti-American and will do his best to undermind us. He's in league wtih that idiot who runs Iran, and any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.

The way the liberals appluaded at Chavez's comment of "genocide" was disgusting, frankly. However, I can't see Chavez ever replacing Castro -- a more likely candidate is Hillary Clinton after she loses her presidential bid.

Oh, go blow it out your backside.

Oh, go blow it out your backside.

HAHAHAHAHAH i agree.

any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.

Yes, it's more than just a catch-phrase... it's a successful franchise.

Eut! Welcome back. :)

I have to admit, I'm not entirely happy with the more simplistic aspects of Chavez's rhetoric. On the whole, though, I do respect the guy.

Oh, and he's never criticised, attacked or insulted the people of the US - quite the reverse.

I've been listening (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/gastatement19.shtml) to the statements of many heads of State and government (including Bush and Chavez), and it's striking that so many are expressing criticism of Bush's US. Chavez is hardly alone.

Ok i think Chavez is an itiot to but what is this typical right wing crap associating him with Castro. Castro isnt really that bad of a dictator better than the ones in Saudia Arabia which we will deal with because they arent communist and have oil. Please, the next castro? where do you right wingers come up with this crap. The only reason we hate Castro so much is because he went communist in our hemisphere something almighty America never though possible with all our power.

Well put, and spot on. The US has always been very happy to back pro-US dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan...) and oppose left-wing democracies (Allende's Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela...).

I see a bunch of attacks against Bush, but one man does not equal the entire country.

Chavez is less of a threat to the United States than its own president.

Well, excuuuuse the FRACK out of me! What I said stands, regardless of how the leftists on here try to spin it. Chavez is an embarassment to his country and is going to eventually destroy it. He's also obviously anti-American and will do his best to undermind us. He's in league wtih that idiot who runs Iran, and any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.

Heheh all i am going to say if my American county was less well built Bush would to the same thing to America DESTROY IT. by this i mean if he could run another term and actually get elected he did quite enough damage to my country in 8 years thank you very much. then again i hope Americans have come to realize what a mud slinging hippocrit he was and wouldnt elecect him again although the first time really shouldnt count seeing as he should have LOST!!!!!

Also maybe this time the democrats could come up with some one more competent instead of offering a slighty better monkey to run things as an alternitave to a really crappy monkey.

Well, excuuuuse the FRACK out of me! What I said stands, regardless of how the leftists on here try to spin it. Chavez is an embarassment to his country and is going to eventually destroy it. He's also obviously anti-American and will do his best to undermind us. He's in league wtih that idiot who runs Iran, and any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.

The "axis of evil" comment Bush made a few years ago was about Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Not Venezuela, Iran and Cuba.


And yeah, excuse you, because there's a huge fucking difference between attacking a country and attacking their leader and his/her policies.

Actually, he called America "imperialist" and claimed that he would go to war with us.


No, he did not. I listened to his speech (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ga/61/ga060920am.rm?start=01:02:20&end=01:26:10) from start to finish, and he said no such thing.

Lies only expose the shallowness of your statements.

Well, excuuuuse the FRACK out of me! What I said stands, regardless of how the leftists on here try to spin it. Chavez is an embarassment to his country and is going to eventually destroy it. He's also obviously anti-American and will do his best to undermind us. He's in league wtih that idiot who runs Iran, and any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.

Chavez's rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. He's not a military leader, he's not an idelogue, he's a politician that knows how to appeal to the masses. Right now, an appeal to anti-Bush sentiment will get him applause anywhere, so he's running that line and cozying up to Bush's current antagonist to make it look as though he might actually act on his words. Don't take political BS so seriously.

The way the liberals appluaded at Chavez's comment of "genocide" was disgusting, frankly. However, I can't see Chavez ever replacing Castro -- a more likely candidate is Hillary Clinton after she loses her presidential bid.

LMAO!! Good one! :D

<snip> .

i dont know what to think about Chavez i hear all this crap about him but it just seems like i have to dig through a layer of mud to get to the damn truth nowadays.

Chavez's rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. He's not a military leader, he's not an idelogue, he's a politician that knows how to appeal to the masses. Right now, an appeal to anti-Bush sentiment will get him applause anywhere, so he's running that line and cozying up to Bush's current antagonist to make it look as though he might actually act on his words. Don't take political BS so seriously.

Any time anyone attacks my Country, I take it VERY seriously!

The "axis of evil" comment Bush made a few years ago was about Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Not Venezuela, Iran and Cuba.


And yeah, excuse you, because there's a huge fucking difference between attacking a country and attacking their leader and his/her policies.

Next thing you know, Cuba or Venezuela will be developing weapons of mass destruction and need to be invaded. Just watch. Bush will say they are evil and so it must be true, right?

Any time anyone attacks my Country, I take it VERY seriously!

He was attacking Bush. Your country is Bush?

The "axis of evil" comment Bush made a few years ago was about Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Not Venezuela, Iran and Cuba.

And yeah, excuse you, because there's a huge fucking difference between attacking a country and attacking their leader and his/her policies.

So now it's Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. ( shrug )

What I said stands

of course it does - it continues to stand in the pile of bullshit it started in.

What I said stands, regardless of how the leftists on here try to spin it.
Despite the fact that it's utterly illogical.

Chavez is an embarassment to his country and is going to eventually destroy it. He's also obviously anti-American and will do his best to undermine us.
In rhetoric, yes, but I don't see him ever doing anything to harm his clients.

Seriously, it's rich for Americans complaining like this. You don't think the US has undermined South American countries a lot?

He's in league wtih that idiot who runs Iran, and any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.
Venezuela was never really in the axis of evil. Though it's obvious that the main reason they're friends is the "Am3rica sux0rs" factor. :rolleyes:

and any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.

It's a catch-phrase of not particularly subtle rhetoric. You criticise Chavez for what he says, and yet Bush's ultra-simplistic rhetoric is at least as bad. Right down there with Reagan's "Evil Empire" nonsense.

He was attacking Bush. Your country is Bush?

nah, eut just takes attacks on his country so seriously that he even starts threads on ones that exist only in his head.

He was attacking Bush. Your country is Bush?

If their country is Bush, their brains are pure mush.

Hey, I'm a poet.

So now it's Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. ( shrug )


Oooh, mighty Venezuela... I'm really shaking in my boots... so terrifying.

C'mon, you can't possibly believe that crap, can you?

of course it does - it continues to stand in the pile of bullshit it started in.

How utterly predictable you are. Sigh.

Oooh, mighty Venezuela... I'm really shaking in my boots... so terrifying.

C'mon, you can't possibly believe that crap, can you?

You don't know Old Man Paranoia, then. This is his stock-in-trade; fear, loathing, and somehow passing himself off as folksy.

Any time anyone attacks my Country, I take it VERY seriously!

Then you should be trying to impeach Bush. he has destroyed our values. practically thrown the constitution out the window and has gone around congress our elected representitaves to send thousands of our people to die in a wasteful war over what oil. When we should have been sending our troops to Afganistan to catch that Sumbitch Osama? does that make any sense to you

We didnt send enough forces to Afganistan because Bush was also planning to invade Iraq from the beggining and he knew a draft would be pollitical suicide and we wouldnt have enough regulars and reserves for both. So oil and a personal Vendetta came before our saftey as a nation. although i think Bush has done a nice job of politcal suicide even without a draft.

Instead we trust afgani troops to catch him and he got away probably bribed the afgan troops. You think the majority of them care about America? we could have had Osama right after 9/11 if Bush had only sent it all to Afganistan, but no he had to take down sadaam because he tried to kill his daddy and my gas guzzling hummer has to keep on humming

Any time anyone attacks my Country, I take it VERY seriously!

Political rhetoric isn't an attack, it's just one man spewing out of his mouth what normally comes out his ass. Taking it seriously is giving Chavez more credit and more attention than the wannabe international player deserves.

nah, eut just takes attacks on his country so seriously that he even starts threads on ones that exist only in his head.

Is that the country or the threat that only exists in EUt's head - or perhaps both.?

I find it quite ironic how Chavez was able to say his anti-American speech comparing the US to Nazis, comparing what is happening in Iraq to genocide, etc., in the United States. Yeah, I'm sure that the Nazis also let political dissidents broadcast anti-Nazi messages freely and openly, too. Same thing with Cuba, right -- surely no political dissidents are arrested? Chavez is an incredible liar and a hypocrite -- how the hell could those damn liberals have had the gall to applaud his disturbing speech? Really.

Oooh, mighty Venezuela... I'm really shaking in my boots... so terrifying.

C'mon, you can't possibly believe that crap, can you?

That's why I put Venezuela last. They're the least likely to be a real threat, but their being in league with the others is frightening because of the implications.

i dont know what to think about Chavez i hear all this crap about him but it just seems like i have to dig through a layer of mud to get to the damn truth nowadays.

As always with controversial figures. I spent a long time wondering about him. Ultimately, my overall opinion of him is a positive one, but I'm not entirely comfortable with some of his more simplistic (populist) rhetoric - nor, for that matter, with his Christian rhetoric.

If you want to make up your own mind about him, you can start by listening directly to what he said (I provided the link in an earlier post), cutting out the second-hand media reports, and the lies added in by the anti-Chavez crowd.

I find it quite ironic how Chavez was able to say his anti-American speech comparing the US to Nazis, comparing what is happening in Iraq to genocide, etc., in the United States. Yeah, I'm sure that the Nazis also let political dissidents broadcast anti-Nazi messages freely and openly, too. Same thing with Cuba, right -- surely no political dissidents are arrested? Chavez is an incredible liar and a hypocrite -- how the hell could those damn liberals have had the gall to applaud his disturbing speech? Really.

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

That's why I put Venezuela last. They're the least likely to be a real threat, but their being in league with the others is frightening because of the implications.

And when Venezuela is no longer part of the axis, will it be Iran, NK and Luxembourg?

Whatever it takes I suppose to make the US citizens quake in their shoes and say 'Please take our rights away so you can protect us from these ebil foreigners Mr. Politician.'

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

In my opinion, this is a flame.

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

Lol! That is an accurate depiction, sadly. :)

It's a catch-phrase of not particularly subtle rhetoric. You criticise Chavez for what he says, and yet Bush's ultra-simplistic rhetoric is at least as bad. Right down there with Reagan's "Evil Empire" nonsense.

Hah Reagan same kind as Bush. But i will give him this he was smarter and more charismatic about his BS. At least it wasnt pathetically as see through as Bush's course i think he might have done more damage than Bush did.

After all it was Reagan politics that trained Osama and turned him into what he is.

In my opinion, this is a flame.

Too true. Flame on!

http://www.spiderfan.org/characters/file_photo/human_torch.jpg

How utterly predictable you are. Sigh.
Ad hominem, much?

Chavez is an incredible liar and a hypocrite -- how the hell could those damn liberals have had the gall to applaud his disturbing speech? Really.
Because he bashed Bush.

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.
Dude wtf, Chavez is the one with the balls to stand up with a superpower. The guys who fall over themselves to defend King Bush are the spineless.

In my opinion, this is a flame.

To be a flame it has to be minimally credible, which Eut no longer is.

Well, excuuuuse the FRACK out of me! What I said stands, regardless of how the leftists on here try to spin it. Chavez is an embarassment to his country and is going to eventually destroy it. He's also obviously anti-American and will do his best to undermind us. He's in league wtih that idiot who runs Iran, and any fool can see that the Axis of Evil is more than just a catch-phrase.

What you said doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not all ebil democrats support chavez, and he didn't even directly comment on the US. He attacked Bush -verbally-. I do the same on a nearly daily basis. And I need more than being "in league" with Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil. Sorry, Venezuela doesn't even register as a blip on the radar except for their oil.

Making fun of Bush =/= attacking America, and being a liberal (or even less so, a democrat) =/= supporting Chavez and his idiocy and rhetoric.

Lol! That is an accurate depiction, sadly. :)

As opposed to conservitaves who were raised with out a brain?

To be a flame it has to be minimally credible, which Eut no longer is.

...or never was, depending either

a) on your perspective, or

b) how long you've been knocking around the General forums.

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

Resorting to verbal attacks?

That makes you as bad as Chavez.

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

Oh yes, Eut. All liberals are without backbone, courage, or balls. And I was clearly raised without my father being there. Thank you for insulting not only me, but my family. A+.

As opposed to conservitaves who were raised with out a brain?

He says, as he misspells "conservative." :D

somehow passing himself off as folksy.

it's the hat

Oh yes, Eut. All liberals are without backbone, courage, or balls. And I was clearly raised without my father being there. Thank you for insulting not only me, but my family. A+.

Yeah, total class. [/sarcasm]

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

It is really conservitaves who have no balls. Dont have the balls to admit for once our country was wrong. Dont have the balls to admit we screwed up in afganistan iraq and the middle east over all. They dont have the balls to real man and own up to their mistakes so they sling mud at the rest of the world.

You know you should take a better look at Kennedy what made him great was he was willing to own up to his screw ups. The bay of pigs.

So now it's Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. ( shrug )

How is it you can have an intelligent, rational opinion on some topics, and then come up with this?

So Venezuela is "evil"? How is that, I prithee?

...or never was, depending either

a) on your perspective, or

b) how long you've been knocking around the General forums.

In my case it was a matter of a few posts before he reached 10,000 I decided that he was full of it. (I was using another name - at the time). Since then I have been proud to be one of what he calls 'the vultures'.

He says, as he misspells "conservative." :D

So now you are going to nitpick on spelling i type fast when i am angry and dont much check my spelling that is what the edit button is for.

Isnt it always conservatives who bash liberals for nittpicking bush's pronunciation and spelling? or did i miss something.

He says, as he misspells "conservative." :D
Maybe you can answer it if spelled correctly:

As opposed to conservatives who were raised without brains?

So now you are going to nitpick on spelling i type fast when i am angry and dont much check my spelling that is what the edit button is for.

Isnt it always conservatives who bash liberals for nittpicking bush's pronunciation and spelling? or did i miss something.

When you're going to post a flame questioning the intelligence of conservatives, do yourself a favour and check your spelling -- otherwise, you might come off looking like a garden-variety liberal hypocrite (endemic to New England, they are).

Maybe you can answer it if spelled correctly:

As opposed to conservatives who were raised without brains?

LOL :headbang:

When you're going to post a flame questioning the intelligence of conservatives, do yourself a favour and check your spelling -- otherwise, you might come off looking like a garden-variety liberal hypocrite (endemic to New England, they are).

i forget, do we know whose puppet you are?

When you're going to post a flame questioning the intelligence of conservatives, do yourself a favour and check your spelling -- otherwise, you might come off looking like a garden-variety liberal hypocrite (endemic to New England, they are).

As opposed to the conservative hypocrite that resorts to personal attacks after condemning a world leader for personal attacks?

When you're going to post a flame questioning the intelligence of conservatives, do yourself a favour and check your spelling -- otherwise, you might come off looking like a garden-variety liberal hypocrite (endemic to New England, they are).

You've never been to New England, have you? But oh, we're all liberal New England academic elitists.

Well, fuck me, but if being from New England, liberal, and valuing education makes me elitist, or much less, hypocritical, then so be it.

I could easily sling back insults, but really, it isn't worth my time. In case you failed to notice, Eut fired the first round of insults. Not these "hypocritical" liberals you accuse.

When you're going to post a flame questioning the intelligence of conservatives, do yourself a favour and check your spelling -- otherwise, you might come off looking like a garden-variety liberal hypocrite (endemic to New England, they are).

Garden variety liberal hippocrit huh. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it conservatives (did i spell it right this time i am sorry) who alwasys get angry when they questions liberals on why liberals think Bush is stupid, and liberals say he cant pronounce nuclear.

So conservatives (Bush) are allowed to make mistakes but liberals aren't?

Is that what you are trying to say. Or do you think spelling and pronunciation always reflect intelligence. Because in that case Bush is stupid as well.

It wasn't because i did not know how to spell the word it was because i didn't check my spelling but I think you got the message anyway. Which is the point of language. Communicating, you understood me so what do i care if i misspelled a word i know how to spell it. Should my i's all be capital as well. Because if they are lower case you wont understand me?

It isn't like i am trying to publish a book here.
And by the way i dont think of myself as liberal i like to think i am moderate.

And by the way i live in Chicago not New England.

As always, we see false rhetoric from the Eut and his chorus of Far Right synchophants backed up by Ad Hominem attacks and slanderous claims.

Try this on for size:

Nancy Pelosi (You MIGHT have heard of her somewhere), condemned Chavez this afternoon and called him a "Common thug"

So much for Dems not standing up to Chavez.

Some of Chavez's criticisms would stand coming from someone other than a hypocrite, but from him and Akmedhoweverthefuckyouwritethebastard'sname, it is empty.

Righties need to put down the big brush, clearly.

How is it you can have an intelligent, rational opinion on some topics, and then come up with this?

So Venezuela is "evil"? How is that, I prithee?

AHEM! [ slings back as good as he's getting ] It's not the PEOPLE I have a problem with, it's their LEADERS! :D

As always, we see false rhetoric from the Eut and his chorus of Far Right synchophants backed up by Ad Hominem attacks and slanderous claims.

Try this on for size:

Nancy Pelosi (You MIGHT have heard of her somewhere), condemned Chavez this afternoon and called him a "Common thug"

So much for Dems not standing up to Chavez.

Some of Chavez's criticisms would stand coming from someone other than a hypocrite, but from him and Akmedhoweverthefuckyouwritethebastard'sname, it is empty.

Righties need to put down the big brush, clearly.

Nancy has to stand for reelection. The leftists who applauded Chavez don't, thank GOD!

AHEM! [ slings back as good as he's getting ] It's not the PEOPLE I have a problem with, it's their LEADERS! :D

The leaders the people of Venezuela chose for themselves? Or would you prefer it if they were represented by leaders chosen for them by some external agency, instead?

The leaders the people of Venezuela chose for themselves? Or would you prefer it if they were represented by leaders chosen for them by some external agency, instead?

leaders chosen for them by some external agency?

can you spot them from these pics?
http://www.cadenaglobal.com/images/noticias/Chavez_23_01.jpg
http://www.spacewar.com/images/iran-ahmadinejad-un-general-assembly-14sep-afp-bg.jpg
http://www2.rnw.nl/assets/images/karzai-bush.jpg

Nancy has to stand for reelection. The leftists who applauded Chavez don't, thank GOD!

She's the rep from San Francisco. Her re-election is practically guarenteed.

AHEM! [ slings back as good as he's getting ] It's not the PEOPLE I have a problem with, it's their LEADERS! :D

yes. Congrats. we're very proud that you realize that not everyone from a country supports or likes the leaders

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

Ah Eut? You are having an Alzheimer's attack.

Ddenunciation of their president. Not their country.

Shh, bashing the president is the same thing as bashnig the counrty, I thought everyone knew that. :rolleyes;

The leaders the people of Venezuela chose for themselves? Or would you prefer it if they were represented by leaders chosen for them by some external agency, instead?

Oh. You mean like the leaders the American people chose for themselves? Hmm. Not real sure you can have it both ways, dude. :p

Largely because liberals were raised by their mommies without benefit of fathers. This breeds a strange animal with the appearance of a man, yet without any backbone, courage, or balls.

Havn't you been banned for shit like that yet?

Ah Eut? You are having an Alzheimer's attack.

Nahh. I just thought I'd come in here and stir things up a bit. You were all getting way too complacent. :D

Oh. You mean like the leaders the American people chose for themselves? Hmm. Not real sure you can have it both ways, dude. :p

I dont know about that the first time around we didn't choose him most of the American people chose Gore.

Thanks, Strummerville. A non-_ian like me evidently isn't welcome to offer comment in a red-blooded, patriotic _ian thread like this one, and you've gone and offered it in my stead. Kudos.

*applauds*

I dont know about that the first time we around we didn't choose him most of the American people chose Gore.

Funny thing about that. Seems every recount held by anyone without a liberal ax to grind indicated that the election was won by Bush. Hmmm!

Funny thing about that. Seems every recount held by anyone without a liberal ax to grind indicated that the election was won by Bush. Hmmm!

Maybe because of the electoral college. But you cant argue he won the popular majority of American votes. In fact he lost by quite a bit in that area over a million last i checked. And that would be the majority of the American people not what the electoral college results said. So what i said is true no matter wether Bush won the election fairly or not.

And exactly who doesnt have a liberal axe to grind conservatives? Because that wouldn't be biased at all either.

Funny thing about that. Seems every recount held by anyone without a liberal ax to grind indicated that the election was won by Bush. Hmmm!

In your dreams, Eut. And the only reason it was close was because of Jebbie's work on kicking black voters off the rolls before the election. Otherwise Gore wins Florida in a walk. Face it--your boy Dubya won by cheating, and only by cheating, and it should be no surprise that he's been the worst president ever as a result.

In your dreams, Eut. And the only reason it was close was because of Jebbie's work on kicking black voters off the rolls before the election. Otherwise Gore wins Florida in a walk. Face it--your boy Dubya won by cheating, and only by cheating, and it should be no surprise that he's been the worst president ever as a result.

He's definitely NOT "my boy," dude. :p

He's definitely NOT "my boy," dude. :p

He was your boy in 2004, wasn't he? Because Kerry sure wasn't, and unless you 1)sat it out, which makes you a shit citizen or 2) voted third party, then he is most decidedly your boy.

He was your boy in 2004, wasn't he? Because Kerry sure wasn't, and unless you 1)sat it out, which makes you a shit citizen or 2) voted third party, then he is most decidedly your boy.

So he's "the boy" of everyone who voted for him? Hmmm. Something wrong with this picture.

So he's "the boy" of everyone who voted for him? Hmmm. Something wrong with this picture.

It just means he has a really, really big family.

So he's "the boy" of everyone who voted for him? Hmmm. Something wrong with this picture.

What's wrong with it? I have nothing but disdain for everyone who voted for Bush in 2004, no matter how they feel about it now. It's not like we didn't know he was a fuckup in 2004. Hell, lots of us knew he was a fuckup in 2000, and after 4 years of his shitty "leadership," no one in 2004 had an excuse. So yes, if you voted for him, no matter how bad he's pissed you off in the intervening years, he's your boy. No ditching his sorry ass now. You had your chance.

In your dreams, Eut. And the only reason it was close was because of Jebbie's work on kicking black voters off the rolls before the election. Otherwise Gore wins Florida in a walk. Face it--your boy Dubya won by cheating, and only by cheating, and it should be no surprise that he's been the worst president ever as a result.

Cudos.

What's wrong with it? I have nothing but disdain for everyone who voted for Bush in 2004, no matter how they feel about it now. It's not like we didn't know he was a fuckup in 2004. Hell, lots of us knew he was a fuckup in 2000, and after 4 years of his shitty "leadership," no one in 2004 had an excuse. So yes, if you voted for him, no matter how bad he's pissed you off in the intervening years, he's your boy. No ditching his sorry ass now. You had your chance.

"Chance?" With a demented dickhead like Kerry??? Riiiight! [ major eye-roll ]

I see your "distain" and raise you a "contemptuous." :p

Nahh. I just thought I'd come in here and stir things up a bit. You were all getting way too complacent. :D
As the Bob Marley song goes, Stir Shit Up!

He's definitely NOT "my boy," dude. :p
Right. You're equating Bush with America. You're denying that Bush got half a million votes less than Gore in 2000.

He was your boy in 2004, wasn't he? Because Kerry sure wasn't, and unless you 1)sat it out, which makes you a shit citizen or 2) voted third party, then he is most decidedly your boy.
I remember Eutrusca back in 2004. Bush was very much his boy.

So he's "the boy" of everyone who voted for him? Hmmm. Something wrong with this picture.

Yep who would vote for him.

As the Bob Marley song goes, Stir Shit Up!


Right. You're equating Bush with America. You're denying that Bush got half a million votes less than Gore in 2000.


I remember Eutrusca back in 2004. Bush was very much his boy.

[ Points at the SEP, 2004 join date beneath his name ] :rolleyes:

"Chance?" With a demented dickhead like Kerry??? Riiiight! [ major eye-roll ]

I see your "distain" and raise you a "contemptuous." :p

Your right about one thing kerry was a dickhead. But how can you possibly think he was a bigger one than Bush.

Are you seriuos:rolleyes:

"Chance?" With a demented dickhead like Kerry??? Riiiight! [ major eye-roll ]

I see your "distain" and raise you a "contemptuous." :p

See? You were dumb enough to buy the Swift Boat bullshit and think that Bush was the better choice. Hell, I'd respect you if you'd at least voted for Pat Buchanan or Harry Browne or Ralph Nader. And I was around in '04. You weren't just anti-Kerry--you were very much pro-Bush, whether you want to admit it now or not.

So yeah, he's your boy, and you're stuck with him. Thanks for fucking the rest of us over.

What's wrong with it? I have nothing but disdain for everyone who voted for Bush in 2004, no matter how they feel about it now. It's not like we didn't know he was a fuckup in 2004. Hell, lots of us knew he was a fuckup in 2000, and after 4 years of his shitty "leadership," no one in 2004 had an excuse. So yes, if you voted for him, no matter how bad he's pissed you off in the intervening years, he's your boy. No ditching his sorry ass now. You had your chance.

once again i am impressed. Cudos once again

*applauds*

See? You were dumb enough to buy the Swift Boat bullshit and think that Bush was the better choice. Hell, I'd respect you if you'd at least voted for Pat Buchanan or Harry Browne or Ralph Nader. And I was around in '04. You weren't just anti-Kerry--you were very much pro-Bush, whether you want to admit it now or not.

So yeah, he's your boy, and you're stuck with him. Thanks for fucking the rest of us over.

You know you really are speaking to my heart right now.

In focusing solely on Hugo Chavez's characterization of Bush as the devil, the mainstream media have succeeded in aiming attention away from the Venezuelan President's most salient point made during his UN speech - CIA control of terror cells around the world and their protection of plane bomber Luis Posada.

According to documents released by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, and verified by the BBC , Luis Posada Carriles was a CIA agent and on the payroll from the 1960s until mid-1976.

Posada was part of an anti-Cuban terror cell called Commanders of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), led by another CIA operative Orlando Bosch. From the mid-1970's Posada and Bosch instigated a reign of terror that spanned seven countries, carrying out over 50 bombings and political assassinations - including the October 1976 bombing of a Cuban passenger plane as it took off from Barbados, killing 73 innocent people on board.

All at the behest of the current President's father and then CIA Director George H.W. Bush.

Posada and Bosch were arrested and jailed in Venezuela but promptly escaped in 1985 when money from Miami, funneled in by fellow terrorist Gaspar Jimenez Escobedo, was used to bribe prison guards.

The two were then transported by terrorist handler and Cuban expatriate Felix Rodriguez to El Salvador to link up with Oliver North and the Iran-Contra conspiracy, supplying Contras against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Two years later Senator Tom Harkin stated the American people "deserve a full accounting of [then Vice President] Bush and the vice president's office and its knowledge of Luis Posada's role in the secret contra supply operation."

After El Salvador, Posada was given safe passage by the U.S. government and allowed to continue to carry out terrorist atrocities, including a wave of tourist industry bombings in Havana during the 1990's.

Posada was finally arrested by federal agents in Miami in May of 2005, but a recent ruling by US magistrate Norbert Garney in El Paso, Texas, will pave the way for the CIA asset and mass murderer to be released once again.

Whether or not you agree with the politics of trying to undermine Communist regimes during the Cold War - the fact remains that the U.S. government has historically created and hired terrorist organizations to carry out acts of mass murder of innocent people to further geopolitical agendas - and has then deliberately protected terrorists from arrest or prosecution.

The hypocrisy of a government and a Bush dynasty supposedly engaged in a war on terror and yet concurrently the biggest sponsor of global terror was made plain by Chavez during his speech yesterday.

"And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plan e, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner," said Chavez.

"And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government."

"And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to," said the Venezuelan President.

"I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse."

Subsequent media response to Chavez's speech framed the debate to only include discussion of his "devil" reference - an almost offhand joke at the start of the talk - and completely ignored the detailed enunciation of the U.S. government's protection of the CIA's terrorist operatives.

Fox News (see above) seized upon the "devil" quote and used it to demonize Chavez as having lost his mind - absent any mention of the Posada topic.

Chavez again alluded to U.S. government complicity in 9/11, a subject he had raised in a previous speech.

"And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists."

Amid the difficult translation, Chavez is clearly making reference to elements of the CIA being behind 9/11.

The media is complicit, acting as gatekeepers in a desperate attempt to edit and obfuscate the hard-hitting and increasingly revealing speeches given by Hugo Chavez. The Venezuelan President's bold intention to rip away the veil of deceit in exposing western state sponsored terror should be applauded and given as much play as possible by the alternative media.

[ Points at the SEP, 2004 join date beneath his name ] :rolleyes:

Some of us have actually been deleted at one time or another for being dickheads around here (unlike one or two people I could mention who've somehow incredibly mysteriously always been allowed a passcard, no matter how much of a dickhead he chooses to be). Hence the join dates.

See? You were dumb enough to buy the Swift Boat bullshit and think that Bush was the better choice. Hell, I'd respect you if you'd at least voted for Pat Buchanan or Harry Browne or Ralph Nader. And I was around in '04. You weren't just anti-Kerry--you were very much pro-Bush, whether you want to admit it now or not.

So yeah, he's your boy, and you're stuck with him. Thanks for fucking the rest of us over.

You know what? I honestly don't give a shit if you have "respect" for me or not. If the election were held again tomorrow, I very well might vote for a anternative candidate, but at the time Bush seemed like a FAR better choice than that lying sack of shit Kerry. And I still feel the same way. I know far too much about what Kerry did during and after Vietnam to vote for such a dispicable gutter-snipe.

Some of us have actually been deleted at one time or another for being dickheads around here (unlike one or two people I could mention who've somehow incredibly mysteriously been allowed a passcard, no matter how much of a dickhead he chooses to be). Hence the join dates.

And some of us used to be here under different names, decided to kick the habit for a while, and then came back under new ones. ;)

Some of us have actually been deleted at one time or another for being dickheads around here (unlike one or two people I could mention who've somehow incredibly mysteriously been allowed a passcard, no matter how much of a dickhead he chooses to be). Hence the join dates.

Your ability to insult without crossing the fine line into flaming is duly noted.

Some of us have actually been deleted at one time or another for being dickheads around here (unlike one or two people I could mention who've somehow incredibly mysteriously been allowed a passcard, no matter how much of a dickhead he chooses to be). Hence the join dates.

I take it their is a long history of this crap.

You know what? I honestly don't give a shit if you have "respect" for me or not. If the election were held again tomorrow, I very well might vote for a anternative candidate, but at the time Bush seemed like a FAR better choice than that lying sack of shit Kerry. And I still feel the same way. I know far too much about what Kerry did during and after Vietnam to vote for such a dispicable gutter-snipe.

So he's your boy. See, that wasn't hard.

So he's your boy. See, that wasn't hard.

( shrug ) Charaterize my choices however you like. Doesn't change a thing.

You know what? I honestly don't give a shit if you have "respect" for me or not. If the election were held again tomorrow, I very well might vote for a anternative candidate, but at the time Bush seemed like a FAR better choice than that lying sack of shit Kerry. And I still feel the same way. I know far too much about what Kerry did during and after Vietnam to vote for such a dispicable gutter-snipe.

Um kerry a "lying sack of shit". You really had no idea what a lying sack of shit Bush was. At least Kerry was kind of semi good at lying. While bush was as transparent as a window he couldnt even lie well like Reagan.

Um kerry a "lying sack of shit". You really had no idea what a lying sack of shit Bush was. At least Kerry was kind of semi good at lying. While bush was as transparent as a window he couldnt even lie well like Reagan.

Careful there, sport. Your liberal bias is showing.

Careful there, sport. Your liberal bias is showing.
Your conservative bias is showing too. Might want to tuck that back, because some of the newer folk around here might not know of your "centrism."

And some of us used to be here under different names, decided to kick the habit for a while, and then came back under new ones. ;)

Yeah?

*pauses to light a number, arches brow & puffs*

So who were you in a past life, Nazz?

Yeah?

*pauses to light a number, arches brow & puffs*

So who were you in a past life, Nazz?

Check your tgs. ;)

Chavez seems to want to act like a shrill, wounded seven year old at recess in the playground. I don't think he's even worth taking note of.

Chavez seems to want to act likeut a shrill, wounded seven year old at recess in the playground. I don't think he's even worth taking note of.
That's be the best way to make him go away, but the Bush administration apparently never learned that it's not wise to punch down. You just make him look more important.

Of course, getting off oil would do even more to get rid of him, because that's all he's got (same goes for the Saudis, Iran, Iraq, basically most every pain in our ass).

That's be the best way to make him go away, but the Bush administration apparently never learned that it's not wise to punch down. You just make him look more important.

Of course, getting off oil would do even more to get rid of him, because that's all he's got (same goes for the Saudis, Iran, Iraq, basically most every pain in our ass).

I couldn't agree more.

That's be the best way to make him go away, but the Bush administration apparently never learned that it's not wise to punch down. You just make him look more important.

Of course, getting off oil would do even more to get rid of him, because that's all he's got (same goes for the Saudis, Iran, Iraq, basically most every pain in our ass).
Its the classic mentality of a "bully", "attention whore", or really, a guy with the maturity of...well...me (okay, just about any guy).

If you pay attention to me, be it positive or negative, when I'm being an ass, I'll keep going. You're just validating me. Actually, if you get pissed off, I'm much more likely to just keep going at it because I want to see just how far I can go.

By giving Chavez any attention, you legitimize what he says and give it power. If you ignore it, like we do with the rest of the world leaders, it means nothing to the world.

Um kerry a "lying sack of shit". You really had no idea what a lying sack of shit Bush was. At least Kerry was kind of semi good at lying. While bush was as transparent as a window he couldnt even lie well like Reagan.

Two problems I see with this:

1. Do you really beleive that Kerry would have made a better leader than Bush? You must admit, even if you DONT like Bush's stance, hes committed to what he beleives is right. Meanwhile, Kerry's views and opinions swayed everytime a gust of wind blew through the window.

2. Why do you keep saying Reagan lied so much?

Two problems I see with this:

1. Do you really beleive that Kerry would have made a better leader than Bush? You must admit, even if you DONT like Bush's stance, hes committed to what he beleives is right. Meanwhile, Kerry's views and opinions swayed everytime a gust of wind blew through the window.

2. Why do you keep saying Reagan lied so much?

1. I see no particular virtue in sticking with a failed policy simply because you believe it's right. When you find yourself in a hole, you don't ask for a bigger shovel--you stop digging. You change the policy until you find something that works. Bush's resoluteness is a failing, not a benefit.

2. Reagan was a hell of a liar. He's lionized by the right because he's the closest thing they have to a successful president since Ike, but do some reading on Iran-Contra sometime. Reagan was neck deep in that shit, as was Poppy Bush.

1. I see no particular virtue in sticking with a failed policy simply because you believe it's right. When you find yourself in a hole, you don't ask for a bigger shovel--you stop digging. You change the policy until you find something that works. Bush's resoluteness is a failing, not a benefit.

2. Reagan was a hell of a liar. He's lionized by the right because he's the closest thing they have to a successful president since Ike, but do some reading on Iran-Contra sometime. Reagan was neck deep in that shit, as was Poppy Bush.


1. Not if you beleive you are doing the right thing, which Bush and his supporters beleive. That right there gets Bush some support, meanwhile Kerry didnt beleive in anything, so he didnt really have any base of support.

2. Every President lies sometime, they are politicians....and every President is neck deep in shit, Reagan simply had to do some bad things to acomplish some things for the greater good. You sacrifice a little to gain alot.

1. Not if you beleive you are doing the right thing, which Bush and his supporters beleive. That right there gets Bush some support, meanwhile Kerry didnt beleive in anything, so he didnt really have any base of support.

2. Every President lies sometime, they are politicians....and every President is neck deep in shit, Reagan simply had to do some bad things to acomplish some things for the greater good. You sacrifice a little to gain alot.

If you're comfortable with those lines of reasoning, then good luck with that. Make sure you get a good price for your soul.

Two problems I see with this:

1. Do you really beleive that Kerry would have made a better leader than Bush? You must admit, even if you DONT like Bush's stance, hes committed to what he beleives is right. Meanwhile, Kerry's views and opinions swayed everytime a gust of wind blew through the window.

2. Why do you keep saying Reagan lied so much?

Actually i think Kerry would have been a better than Bush at least is foriegn policy wouldnt be to smack every country in the face that dissagrees with him.

I dont realy see much morality in Bush's stance and find it hard to believe he does either. It is one thing to say we are going to stick it to the terrorists. But to then invade Iraq which had nothing to do with Al-Queda until we invaded and now they use it as an example of the "American crusade against muslims". Not to mention the troops in Iraq could have been put to much better use in the war on Terrorism than in iraq where all they do is become a target for Al-Queda.

Reagan lied about many things to the middle east and used a bunch of underhanded tricks in his politics and foriegn policies. He supported Iraq in keeping Iran in check yet some how American weapons found themselves in the hands of Iranians to. To me that sends the message America is going to encourage you fighting so you can just wipe each other out to the people of those countries.

He talked about keeping Afganistan out of Soviet hands. But why not because it was bad for the people of Afgan but because the soviet were communist and we didnt like them. Once we had what we wanted out of Afganistan he simply turned his back on them. Untill some one flew planes into the world trade center and we had to turn our eye back to the middle east.

He talked about improving the welfare of all Americans through what he called the trickle down affect. But i find it hard to believe he wasn't just trying to make his rich friends more rich. Or that he believed handing rich corporate employers more powers and freedom that they would spend it on increasing the average American wages. Now that is simply not true corporations generally have one purpose to supply a product or service and make money off that and history shows thats is generally all they care about. Not that they should be different it is not their job to enforce minimum wage or look after a countries standard of living that is the job of the government and Reagan stripped our government of the ability to do that.

Also he denied that there was any persecution of left wing actors and directors, producers etc. when asked by a reporter saying that the only persecution was made up by whiny liberals. When there is much doccumented proof of a blacklist in hollywood.

He also talked about sticking it to evil regimes when he suported more than a few. None of these regimes however claimed to be communist so that was alright.

1. Not if you beleive you are doing the right thing, which Bush and his supporters beleive. That right there gets Bush some support, meanwhile Kerry didnt beleive in anything, so he didnt really have any base of support.

2. Every President lies sometime, they are politicians....and every President is neck deep in shit, Reagan simply had to do some bad things to acomplish some things for the greater good. You sacrifice a little to gain alot.

Kerry didnt know what to believe. this was because Bush landed us in some serious doodoo. On the one hand we need to go after the real al-queda terrorists and Iraq is taking up to much of our precious military forces right now. And we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. On the other hand you cant simply pull out of Iraq and leave the country in Chaos even if we were wrong to go there in the first place.

1. Not if you beleive you are doing the right thing, which Bush and his supporters beleive. That right there gets Bush some support, meanwhile Kerry didnt beleive in anything, so he didnt really have any base of support.so it is better to deny reality and accept that something didn't work than to find an actual solution?You can't fix a problem untill you admit it exists. In order to admit it exists, you have to admit failure and accept responsibility.

Look at it like taking a test. I have a test. I don't study. I fail. I keep doing this, saying that I don't need to study. I can keep doing this, and keep failing, or I can admit that it doesn't work, and do something about it. Pride is a dangerous thing for a reason

Face it--your boy Dubya won by cheating, and only by cheating, and it should be no surprise that he's been the worst president ever as a result.

One of the worst, but not the worst.

Chavez seems to want to act like a shrill, wounded seven year old at recess in the playground. I don't think he's even worth taking note of.

Agreed 100%.

One of the worst, but not the worst.

I think he's well outdistanced Warren G Harding and Richard Nixon by now, simply through use of signing statements. That alone took him past Nixon, and this latest abomination of a torture bill only adds to the legacy.

I think he's well outdistanced Warren G Harding and Richard Nixon by now, simply through use of signing statements. That alone took him past Nixon, and this latest abomination of a torture bill only adds to the legacy.

You mean the one Mcain claimed followed the letter and spirit of the Geneva convention.

You mean the one Mcain claimed followed the letter and spirit of the Geneva convention.
Yeah, the one that McCain sucked it up and accepted because he wants the '08 nomination so bad he can taste it. There's nothing sadder than watching a once honorable man sucking ass for something he wants. He sold out not only himself with this "compromise;" he sold out every other vet who was ever tortured in a prison camp. I wouldn't spit on him if he were on fire.

I think he's well outdistanced Warren G Harding and Richard Nixon by now, simply through use of signing statements. That alone took him past Nixon, and this latest abomination of a torture bill only adds to the legacy.

What was so bad about Harding, aside from the corruption? He's arguably less corrupt than, say, U.S. Grant was.

I wouldn't spit on him if he were on fire.

I would, if my saliva were made of gasoline.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

What was so bad about Harding, aside from the corruption? He's arguably less corrupt than, say, U.S. Grant was.
Harding's the one who, when I was growing up, was universally considered the worst president ever, so that's why I picked him. Grant, I've learned recently after doing some reading, got a really bad rap. He was never corrupt personally, and his cabinet was apparently no more corrupt than any other cabinet. What he was, however, was a fierce civil rights advocate, unusual in that day and age, and so when Reconstruction ended, the former Confederates who regained power in the South set about to destroy Grant's reputation, and they pretty much succeeded.

Just out of curiosity, who's your bottom of the list?

Just out of curiosity, who's your bottom of the list?

Heh heh heh...too many to list. :D

But Bush is definitely down there. The reason I don't have him at the very bottom is that I don't believe he does half the stuff he does on purpose, or at least, not with malicious intent. I think Bush is really too stupid to know right from wrong.

Actually i think Kerry would have been a better than Bush at least is foriegn policy wouldnt be to smack every country in the face that dissagrees with him.

I dont realy see much morality in Bush's stance and find it hard to believe he does either. It is one thing to say we are going to stick it to the terrorists. But to then invade Iraq which had nothing to do with Al-Queda until we invaded and now they use it as an example of the "American crusade against muslims". Not to mention the troops in Iraq could have been put to much better use in the war on Terrorism than in iraq where all they do is become a target for Al-Queda.

Reagan lied about many things to the middle east and used a bunch of underhanded tricks in his politics and foriegn policies. He supported Iraq in keeping Iran in check yet some how American weapons found themselves in the hands of Iranians to. To me that sends the message America is going to encourage you fighting so you can just wipe each other out to the people of those countries.

He talked about keeping Afganistan out of Soviet hands. But why not because it was bad for the people of Afgan but because the soviet were communist and we didnt like them. Once we had what we wanted out of Afganistan he simply turned his back on them. Untill some one flew planes into the world trade center and we had to turn our eye back to the middle east.

He talked about improving the welfare of all Americans through what he called the trickle down affect. But i find it hard to believe he wasn't just trying to make his rich friends more rich. Or that he believed handing rich corporate employers more powers and freedom that they would spend it on increasing the average American wages. Now that is simply not true corporations generally have one purpose to supply a product or service and make money off that and history shows thats is generally all they care about. Not that they should be different it is not their job to enforce minimum wage or look after a countries standard of living that is the job of the government and Reagan stripped our government of the ability to do that.

Also he denied that there was any persecution of left wing actors and directors, producers etc. when asked by a reporter saying that the only persecution was made up by whiny liberals. When there is much doccumented proof of a blacklist in hollywood.

He also talked about sticking it to evil regimes when he suported more than a few. None of these regimes however claimed to be communist so that was alright.

Isn't hindsight wonderful! It's nice to know that you're so knowledgable that you can second guess every politician you to whom you take some sort of dislike.

Yeah, the one that McCain sucked it up and accepted because he wants the '08 nomination so bad he can taste it. There's nothing sadder than watching a once honorable man sucking ass for something he wants. He sold out not only himself with this "compromise;" he sold out every other vet who was ever tortured in a prison camp. I wouldn't spit on him if he were on fire.

There you go again, blaming politicians for getting elected. That's like blaming someone for dressing up a bit because they want to attract the opposite sex. Sigh. What sort of little never-never land do you live in???

None of these regimes however claimed to be communist so that was alright.

Reagan had no problem with communist or Marxist countries, as long as they weren't pro-Soviet. Hence, he got along all right with Ceacescu, Deng Xiaoping, and Mugabe, but not Ortega, Castro, or Kim il-Sung.

But yes, he did support quite a few nasty people. He called Mobutu Sese Seko "a voice of good sense and good will." He also supported Rios Montt of Guatemala, whose scorched Earth tactics killed many tens of thousands of indigenous people.

There you go again, blaming politicians for getting elected. That's like blaming someone for dressing up a bit because they want to attract the opposite sex. Sigh. What sort of little never-never land do you live in???

Methinks The Nazz's problem is not with politicians wanting to be elected, but rather with what he sees as compromising one's ethics to get elected.

There you go again, blaming politicians for getting elected. That's like blaming someone for dressing up a bit because they want to attract the opposite sex. Sigh. What sort of little never-never land do you live in???

You don't have to approve of torture to get elected. Tens of thousands of politicians over the last two centuries have managed it. So why couldn't McCain? Do you think he gets some special kind of pass, some "I can support torture and it's cool" card? Spare me. Some shit you don't compromise on, no matter what's at stake.

But you know something, Eutrusca--with the kind of attitude you display, you certainly have the kind of government you deserve. Thanks for fucking the rest of us.

Some shit you don't compromise on, no matter what's at stake.

Edit: unless you're a Republican.

;)

He has delivered less than 1/8 of the oil he promised to the poor of this country
Got something to back that statement up?

Edit: unless you're a Republican.

;)

On this issue, we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if some Dems wind up voting for this damnable thing too, and I'll be pissed if they do.

On this issue, we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if some Dems wind up voting for this damnable thing too, and I'll be pissed if they do.

It seems like almost all American politicians these days are blood-suckers, willing to sacrifice any principle to milk a vote. :(

On this issue, we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if some Dems wind up voting for this damnable thing too, and I'll be pissed if they do.

I'm sure they are all shaking in their boots at the prospect.

It seems like almost all American politicians these days are blood-suckers, willing to sacrifice any principle to milk a vote. :(

Alas, how I long for the days of honest politicians!



...

Alas, how I long for the days of honest politicians!...

Aaand ... those days were when?

Aaand ... those days were when?

Athens, friend.

Back in those days, you were honest, or you were dead.

You probably remember those days, right?

I'm sure they are all shaking in their boots at the prospect.They certainly have more to fear from a voter who will hold them accountable than they do from one like you who'll sit back and say "oh, politicians have always been like this." Take a stand or go rot. Makes no difference to me what you do.

So he's "the boy" of everyone who voted for him? Hmmm. Something wrong with this picture.

That's right. It doesn't seem too hard to understand to me.

Alas, how I long for the days of honest politicians!...

Those days existed?

Athens, friend.

Back in those days, you were honest, or you were dead.

You probably remember those days, right?

Not if you could get away with lying and i am sure some did and Athens politicians oppresed most of the people in athens as only land owning aristocrats had any say.

Isn't hindsight wonderful! It's nice to know that you're so knowledgable that you can second guess every politician you to whom you take some sort of dislike.

Hindsight what are you talking about I always knew Bush was a liar. and as for Ronald well I wasn't really in a position to second guess him when he was prez being as i couldn't talk or walk at the time.
But i do like to look back and figure out how things have gotten today and to me it seems George is trying to follow in good old Ronalds footsteps, his economic and middle eastern policies sure seem like it to me. Raegan sure seems to me the beggining of most of our middleastern problems today. You know since Raegan put so much suport behind Sadaam in Iraq and trained Osama.

Raegan sure seems to me the beggining of most of our middleastern problems today. You know since Raegan put so much suport behind Sadaam in Iraq and trained Osama.

Like I say, hindsight.

Like I say, hindsight.

It doesn't require "hindsight" to realize that supporting brutal dictators and murderous fanatics might not be the best idea.

More like "common sense."

That's right. It doesn't seem too hard to understand to me.

It's not hard to understand, Californian, it's just impossible to swallow.

It doesn't require "hindsight" to realize that supporting brutal dictators and murderous fanatics might not be the best idea.

More like "common sense."

No, "common sense" tells us that, when you're in what you consider to be a fight for your children's future, it's politic to support those who are the enemy of your enemy. True, in an ideal world, dictators and fanatics should be shunned like the plague. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

Perhaps you would feel better if we filed it under, "Seemed Like A Good Idea at the Time."

No, "common sense" tells us that, when you're in what you consider to be a fight for your children's future, it's politic to support those who are the enemy of your enemy.

Right. And supporting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had what to do with "a fight for your children's future"?

True, in an ideal world, dictators and fanatics should be shunned like the plague. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any dictators and fanatics.

In our current world, supporting dictators can be wise but is rarely morally acceptable, and supporting fanatics is simply foolish.

Like I say, hindsight.

I am pretty sure I would have thought it a bad idea even if I didn't know what I know now. Guess I will never know.

Right. And supporting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had what to do with "a fight for your children's future"?

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any dictators and fanatics.

In our current world, supporting dictators can be wise but is rarely morally acceptable, and supporting fanatics is simply foolish.

Uh ... I realize you were only a gleam in your old man's eye at the time, but you have at least heard of The Cold War, yes? You don't have to worry about the Russian nuclear "sword of Damocles" hanging over your head because people like Ronald Reagan kept pushing at the USSR's empire until it fell over of its own weight. Be glad. People back then were scared to death that we were all going to die in some nuclear Ragnarok.

Uh ... I realize you were only a gleam in your old man's eye at the time, but you have at least heard of The Cold War, yes? You don't have to worry about the Russian nuclear "sword of Damocles" hanging over your head because people like Ronald Reagan kept pushing at the USSR's empire until it fell over of its own weight. Be glad. People back then were scared to death that we were all going to die in some nuclear Ragnarok.

The cold war was winding down. the USSR was doomed to colapse with or without US intervention at that point even if they had got a hold of some middleastern oil all Reagan did at most was speed up their collapse. And the Russians would not have been dumb enough to start a Nuclear Ragnorack it would have meant their end too. Something they were at that point desperatly trying to prevent.

It's not hard to understand, Californian, it's just impossible to swallow.

Why's that? How is it hard to swallow the fact that if you voted for someone, they're yours and you bear partial responsibility for them being in office?

Maybe because you're embarrassed of that fact? The fact that the idiocy of people like you has had such disastrous consequences for America? I'm sorry, but your excuses don't fly.

And that's damn right, I am a Californian. A northern Californian at that. I'm proud of it and don't you forget it.

COMMENTARY: Hugo Chavez' address to the UN Wednesday left no doubt in any sane person's mind that his hatred for America runs deep and wide. IMHO, he's leading his country down a path that will eventually ruin it economically, and now he's wanting others to follow the same path. It's suicidal. And of course the Democratic Left applauded the denunciation of their own Country. That also is suicidal. I often find myself wondering what possesses such people.


Trying to get rid of Hugo twice means he probably takes Bushs shite personally. However he is right - "Bush" - essentially Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and the others - are evil.

Uh ... I realize you were only a gleam in your old man's eye at the time, but you have at least heard of The Cold War, yes? You don't have to worry about the Russian nuclear "sword of Damocles" hanging over your head because people like Ronald Reagan kept pushing at the USSR's empire until it fell over of its own weight. Be glad. People back then were scared to death that we were all going to die in some nuclear Ragnarok.


Unless you were in Latin America, where the threat of a death squad backed and financed by Uncle Ron was a far more real and regular occurrence.

Unless you were in Latin America, where the threat of a death squad backed and financed by Uncle Ron was a far more real and regular occurrence.

You should realise by now that Eutrusca ignores posts he can't reply to. Such as this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11715738&postcount=101).

You should realise by now that Eutrusca ignores posts he can't reply to. Such as this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11715738&postcount=101).It's a shame, too, because that's probably the most reasoned and well thought out post on the thread.

Some of us have actually been deleted at one time or another for being dickheads around here (unlike one or two people I could mention who've somehow incredibly mysteriously always been allowed a passcard, no matter how much of a dickhead he chooses to be). Hence the join dates.
I was deleted for inactivity numerous times.

I know far too much about what Kerry did during and after Vietnam to vote for such a dispicable gutter-snipe.
Bush started the Iraq war. That's why he shouldn't have been reelected. Objectively, that's a much bigger issue than Vietnam right now.

2. Every President lies sometime, they are politicians....and every President is neck deep in shit, Reagan simply had to do some bad things to acomplish some things for the greater good. You sacrifice a little to gain alot.
I'm sick and tired of apologists for terrorism (whether Islamic or anti-communist).

Isn't hindsight wonderful! It's nice to know that you're so knowledgable that you can second guess every politician you to whom you take some sort of dislike.
Do you ever actually answer points?

Alright, to clarify things from the beginning...

Better sources, in the account of being direct
http://www.abn.info.ve/go_news5.php?articulo=62631&lee=4
Entire and perfect, not altered transcription of the speech. For those who do not speak spanish, I am sorry to inform you that the speech was made in said language. If you want to deal with proper translations, find yourself someone or something able to translate it. I'll try to give you an unbiased version of the most controversial parts.

1.-
Miren, yo creo que los primeros ciudadanos que deberían leer este libro son los ciudadanos hermanos y hermanas de los Estados Unidos, porque la amenaza la tienen en su propia casa; el diablo está en casa, pues. El diablo, el propio diablo está en casa. Ayer vino el diablo aquí.

"Look, I think that the first citizens that should read this book (Noam Chomsky's one) are the sisters and brothers citizens of the United States of America, because they have the menace in the own home; the devil is at home, then, The devil, the own proper devil is at home. Yesterday the devil was here"

2.-
Ayer estuvo el diablo aquí, en este mismo lugar. ¡Huele a azufre todavía esta mesa donde me ha tocado hablar! Ayer, señoras, señores, desde esta misma tribuna el señor Presidente de los Estados Unidos, a quien yo llamo «el diablo», vino aquí hablando como dueño del mundo, como dueño del mundo. Un psiquiatra no estaría demás para analizar el discurso de ayer del Presidente de los Estados Unidos. Como vocero del imperialismo vino a dar sus recetas para tratar de mantener el actual esquema de dominación, de explotación y de saqueo a los pueblos del mundo. Para una película de Alfred Hitchcock estaría buena; incluso yo propondría un título: «La receta del diablo».

"Yesterday the devil was here, in this same place. This table where I am speaking still smells like sulphur! Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this same place the Mister President of the United States, that I call the Devil, came here talking like if he was the owner of the world. A shrink wouldn't be too much to analyze the yesterday's speech of the President of the United States. As a spokesman of the imperialism he came to give us his recipes to try to maintain the current scheme of domination, exploit and plunder of the peoples of the world. It would be a good theme for an Alfred Hitchcock's movie; even I would propose a title "The Devil's Recipe"

3.-
El discurso del Presidente-tirano mundial, lleno de cinismo, lleno de hipocresía, es la hipocresía imperial, el intento de controlar todo. Ellos quieren imponernos el modelo democrático como lo conciben: la falsa democracia de las élites. Y además un modelo democrático muy original: ¡impuesto a bombazos, a bombardeos y a punta de invasiones y de cañonazos! ¡Vaya qué democracia! Habría que revisar las tesis de Aristóteles, ¿no? Y de los primeros que hablaron por allá en Grecia, de la democracia, a ver qué modelo de democracia es ése, el que se impone a punta de marines, de invasiones, de agresiones y de bombas.

"The speech of the president-World's tyrant, filled of cynism, filled with hypocrisy, it is the imperial hypocrisy, the intent of controlling everything. They want to impose the democratic model as the conceive it: the fake democracy of the elites. Plus, a democratic model pretty original: Imposed with bomb strikes, aerial bombardments, and with invasions and cannon shots! Well isn't that democracy! We should check the thesis from Aristotle, no? And of the the first ones that spoke over there in Greece, about democracy, to see what kind of model of democracy is that, the one imposed using marines, invasions, aggresions and bombs"

4.-
Luego, el señor Presidente vino a hablarles, así lo dijo: «Hoy quiero hablarles directamente a las poblaciones del Oriente Medio, mi país desea la paz...». Esto es cierto. Si nosotros nos vamos por la calles del Bronx, si nosotros nos vamos por las calles de Nueva York, de Washington, de San Diego, de California, de cualquier ciudad, de San Antonio, de San Francisco y le preguntamos a la gente en las calles, a los ciudadanos estadounidenses. Este país quiere la paz. La diferencia está en que el Gobierno de este país, de Estados Unidos, no quiere la paz, quiere imponernos su modelo de explotación y de saqueo, y su hegemonía a punta de guerras. Ésa es la pequeña diferencia, quiere la paz, ¿y qué está pasando en Irak?, ¿y qué ha pasado en el Líbano y en Palestina?, ¿y qué ha pasado en 100 años, pues, en América Latina y en el mundo? Y ahora las amenazas contra Venezuela, nuevas amenazas contra Venezuela, nuevas amenazas contra Irán… Le habló al pueblo del Líbano: «Muchos de ustedes han visto cómo sus hogares y sus comunidades quedaron atrapadas en el fuego cruzado». ¡Vaya qué cinismo!, ¡vaya qué capacidad para mentir descaradamente ante el mundo! Las bombas en Beirut, lanzadas con precisión milimétrica, ¿son fuego cruzado? Creo que el Presidente está pensando en las películas del Oeste, cuando se disparaba desde la cintura y alguien quedaba atravesado en el fuego cruzado. ¡Fuego imperialista, fuego fascista, fuego asesino y fuego genocida, el del imperio y el de Israel contra el pueblo inocente de Palestina y el pueblo del Líbano! ¡Ésa es la verdad!, ahora dicen que sufren, que estamos sufriendo porque vemos sus hogares destruidos.

"Then Mr. President came to tell you, like this: 'Today I want to address directly to the people of the Middle East, my country wants the peace'. That is true. If we go through the streets of the Bronx, if we take a walk through the streets of New York, Washington, San Diego, California, of any city. Of San Antonio, San Francisco and ask the people in the street, to the american citizens. This country wants peace. The difference is that the goverment of this country, of the United States of America, do not want peace, wants to impose us its model of exploit and sack, and their hegemony based on war. That is the little difference, he wants peace, And what is happening in Irak?, What is happening in the Lebanon and Palestine? And what has happened in Latin America and the world? And now the threats against Venezuela, new threats against Iran...He (Bush) spoke to the people of the Lebanon 'Lots of you have seen how your homes and your communities got caught in crossed fire' Wow how cynical!, Wow such skill to lie with an open face to the world! The bombs in Beirut, launched with milimetrical precision, Are crossed fire? I think the president is thinking in the Wild West movies, when you shooted from the hip and someone got caught in the crossed fire. Imperialist fire!, Fascist fire! assassin and genocide fire, of the empire and Israel against the innocent peoples of Palestine and Lebanon. That is the truth!, now they say they suffer, that 'we are suffering because we see your homes destroyed'."

5.-
Ya Estados Unidos planificó, financió e impulsó un golpe de Estado en Venezuela y Estados Unidos sigue apoyando movimientos golpistas en Venezuela y contra Venezuela, sigue apoyando el terrorismo. Ya la presidenta Michelle Bachelet recordaba hace unos días —perdón, hace unos minutos— el horrible asesinato del ex canciller chileno Orlando Letelier; yo sólo agregaría lo siguiente: los culpables están libres y los culpables de aquel hecho donde murió también una ciudadana estadounidense, son norteamericanos, de la CIA, terroristas de la CIA. Pero además hay que recordar en esta sala que dentro de pocos días también se cumplirán 30 años igualmente de aquel hecho terrorista horripilante de la voladura del avión cubano, donde murieron 73 inocentes, un avión de Cubana de Aviación, ¿y dónde está el más grande terrorista de este continente y quien asumió la voladura del avión cubano, como autor intelectual?

Estuvo preso en Venezuela unos años, se fugó, allá por complicidad de funcionarios de la CIA y del Gobierno venezolano de entonces. Está aquí viviendo en Estados Unidos, protegido por este Gobierno, y fue convicto y confeso.

El Gobierno de los Estados Unidos tiene un doble rasero y protege el terrorismo.

"Already the United States of America planned, financed and impulsed a coup of state in Venezuela and the United States keeps supporting insurget movements iin and against Venezuela, it keeps supporting terrorism. The president (of Chile) Michelle Bachelet recalled several days ago-Sorry, minutes ago- the horrible murder of the chilean ex chancellor Orlado Letelier; I'd just add the following: the guilty are free and the guilty of said fact where also died a citizen of the United States, are North Americans, of the CIA, terrorists of the CIA. But we also have to remember in this room that in few days there would be also 30 years since that horrible terrorist fact of the explosion of the cuban airplane, where died 73 innocent people,a plane belonging to Cubana de Aviación. And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent and who assumed the bombing of the cuban airplane, as the intellectual criminal?"

"He was imprisoned in Venezuela several years, he escaped, thanks to the help of CIA operatives and the Venezuelan goverment in office back then. He is here living in the United States, protected by this goverment, and he was sentenced after his own confession."

"The goverment of the United states of America has a double standard and protects terrorism"

6.-
He hablado del avión cubano, Luis Posada Carriles se llama el terrorista, está protegido aquí. Como protegidos están aquí grandes corruptos que se fugaron de Venezuela; un grupo de terroristas que allá pusieron bombas contra embajadas de varios países, que allá asesinaron gente durante el golpe de Estado, secuestran a este humilde servidor y lo iban a fusilar, sólo que Dios metió su mano, y un grupo de buenos soldados y un pueblo que se fue a las calles; y de milagro estoy aquí. Están aquí, protegidos por el Gobierno de Estados Unidos los líderes de aquel golpe de Estado y de aquellos actos terroristas. Yo acuso al Gobierno de Estados Unidos de proteger al terrorismo, y de tener un discurso totalmente cínico.

"I have spoken of the cuban plane, Luis Posada Carriles is called the terrorist, he is protected here. As protected as are here great corrupts who ran away from Venezuela; a group of terrorists that there planted bombs against embassies of different countries, that there murdered people during the coup of state, kidnapped this humble servant and were going to execute him by a firing squad, just that God intervened, and a group of good soldiers and a people that went to the streets; and thanks to a miracle I am here. They are here, protected by the goverment of the United States the leaders of said coup of state and of those terrorists acts. I accuse the goverment of the United States of America of protecting terrorism, and of having a totally cynical position on the issue".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for writing such a long post, but I hope it can be used as a source for the discussions here or other arguments over this issue. I won't clarify my position on the subject yet, as me being a Venezuelan can be seen as a "subjetive and abject view, funded by either Chávez or the CIA". If any of you need the translation of any other fragment of said speech, I'll be happy to provide you with it, just ask.

Look..I understand that alot of people DONT like Bush, but in my opinion they have 0 credibility to say so if they are allies and back the insane Islamic Theocracy of Iran.

It seems like everything he says about us being evil are exactly the same things MOST OF THE WORLD says about Iran, yet he backs this country. :rolleyes:

Unless you were in Latin America, where the threat of a death squad backed and financed by Uncle Ron was a far more real and regular occurrence.

Fine, but what matters more. Backing anti-communists groups to trying and give Latin America stable capitalist governments...(see Chile)....or trying to stop the world from going to nuclear war?

If you want to deal with proper translations, find yourself someone or something able to translate it.

Or, better still, do as I've already suggested, and listen to the translation of his speech to the UN (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ga/61/ga060920am.rm?start=01:02:20&end=01:26:10).

Fine, but what matters more. Backing anti-communists groups to trying and give Latin America stable capitalist governments...(see Chile)....or trying to stop the world from going to nuclear war?

I'd be very curious to know how you interpret arming, funding and supporting terrorist groups to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians as "trying to stop the world from going to nuclear war".

It is also highly ironic that those who support the US' "War on Terror" with no questions asked should, in the same breath, support terrorism. Just a slight contradiction there, methinks. "We're against terrorism! Terrorism is good!"

COMMENTARY: Hugo Chavez' address to the UN Wednesday left no doubt in any sane person's mind that his hatred for America runs deep and wide. IMHO, he's leading his country down a path that will eventually ruin it economically, and now he's wanting others to follow the same path. It's suicidal. And of course the Democratic Left applauded the denunciation of their own Country. That also is suicidal. I often find myself wondering what possesses such people.


Muted Reaction to Hugo Chavez's Outburst (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200609/NAT20060921b.html)


By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Reaction to Hugo Chavez's Bush-bashing tirade at the United Nations on Wednesday drew little or no response in most quarters, except for liberal Democratic blogs, where cheers for Chavez dominated the discourse.

The Venezuelan president, addressing the U.N. General Assembly, insulted President Bush personally -- and repeatedly.

"The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday," Chavez said as he made the sign of the cross. "Yesterday, the devil came here -- right here, right here -- and it smells of sulfur still today," he added, drawing laughter from other U.N. delegates.

The attack went on: Chavez accused Bush of wanting to take over the world, and he suggested the president needs psychiatric help.

Later Wednesday, in a speech at a New York City college (Cooper Union), Chavez received a standing ovation from faculty, students and others when he accused President Bush of committing genocide in Iraq.

"The president of the United States should go before an international tribunal" (for war crimes), Chavez said.

On Thursday, major newspapers carried reports about Chavez's Bush-bashing, but most did not include reaction from Members of Congress, Democrat or Republican.

The Boston Globe was among the exceptions. It reported that Chavez's remarks "prompted a rebuke" from one of Chavez's "closest friends in Congress" -- U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who helped negotiate a deal with Chavez in which Venezuela offers discounted heating oil to tens of thousands of Boston-area residents.

Delahunt called Chavez's comments "silly" and "inappropriate," the Boston Globe said. But according to the newspaper, "Delahunt asserted that the Bush administration's foreign policy deserves some blame for fostering a climate where a world leader could offer such strident denunciations of the American president in front of the General Assembly."

Delahunt is quoted as saying that he will continue working with Chavez to bring cheap heating oil to Boston's poor people again this year.

In its report, the New York Times offered the following understatement: "Mr. Chavez's remarks were translated from Spanish, and while subtleties can sometimes be lost in translation, his feelings about the United States seemed to come through clearly enough."

Good for Chavez

"Who was offended by the Chavez remarks about Bush?" asked the Democratic Underground website.

"I laughed by @ss off and called my Mom so she could laugh, too," wrote one respondent. Other comments: "If others respected our president, it would never have happened." "I'm offended by anyone who was offended by what Chavez said." And so on.

A number of Democrats also have said derogatory things about President Bush. Last year, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called Bush a "loser" before a group of high school students. "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said, adding, "I think this guy is a loser." Reid later called the White House to apologize.

And Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) -- criticizing President Bush for his response to Hurricane Katrina last year -- told the Congressional Black Caucus, "George Bush is our Bull Connor." Connor, a former police commissioner in Birmingham, Ala., ordered his troops to attack civil rights marchers with dogs and fire hoses during a demonstration in 1963.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wouldn't dignify Chavez's remarks with a comment, but she did call the remarks "unbecoming for a head of state."

John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, dismissed Chavez's "insulting" comments, calling them a "comic-strip approach to international affairs."


Chavez reminds me of a drunk guy in a bar a bit down on his luck and mad at the world .

here I'll even godwin the thread for you..he's like Hitler in a munich beer hall with a similar message..that the Europeans / Americans have raped you enslaved you and stolen all your resources...( from his speech in Harlem ) .

He's still mad at the Spanish for Columbus....:D

Or, better still, do as I've already suggested, and listen to the translation of his speech to the UN (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ga/61/ga060920am.rm?start=01:02:20&end=01:26:10).


Why would a women FROM Venezuela need a translation of her own language ?

Fine, but what matters more. Backing anti-communists groups to trying and give Latin America stable capitalist governments...(see Chile)....or trying to stop the world from going to nuclear war?

How the Chile "revolution" helped to stop the war from going to nuclear war?

Both are horrible evils. Rampant communism, that is just a way to manipulate people using demagogue ways, or expanding imperialism views using terrorism.

The only part where I agree with Chávez there is that the goverment of the United States has a double standard regarding terrorism.

I heard once on these forums that those willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. I fully identify myself with that view.

Why would a women FROM Venezuela need a translation of her own language ?

I don't need one. However, I tried to provided the english speaking people of the forums with the most unbiased translation I could come out with, as most media all around the world use just excerpts that can be easily misinterpreted.

I tried to help, that's all.

Look..I understand that alot of people DONT like Bush, but in my opinion they have 0 credibility to say so if they are allies and back the insane Islamic Theocracy of Iran.

It seems like everything he says about us being evil are exactly the same things MOST OF THE WORLD says about Iran, yet he backs this country. :rolleyes:
I agree, I hate the Iranian government, that's one of the big things I don't like about Chavez, but the Venezuelan is right about some things.

I don't need one. However, I tried to provided the english speaking people of the forums with the most unbiased translation I could come out with, as most media all around the world use just excerpts that can be easily misinterpreted.

I tried to help, that's all.

What I wonder is why anyone in the US gives a flying crap what Chavez does or says.

What I wonder is why anyone in the US gives a flying crap what Chavez does or says.

Because it is a speech insulting their goverment in the general assembly to the UN. It is a set of news similar to Mahmud Ahmadinejad saying that Israel must be wiped off the map. I'm not supporting it, or condemning it. I'm going to try to remain higher than that and act like the "objective" journalist I "should" be and just provide the most truthful information available.

What I wonder is why anyone in the US gives a flying crap what Chavez does or says.
Well there's oil, then there's the Sheehan factor that causes many of the same people to follow the activities of Cindy.

Because it is a speech insulting their goverment in the general assembly to the UN. It is a set of news similar to Mahmud Ahmadinejad saying that Israel must be wiped off the map. I'm not supporting it, or condemning it. I'm going to try to remain higher than that and act like the "objective" journalist I "should" be and just provide the most truthful information available.

People insult the US government all the time - it's a long tradition that started way before the current President.

Well there's oil, then there's the Sheehan factor that causes many of the same people to follow the activities of Cindy.

Really, I don't think Venezeula has enough oil to make a big difference, especially since most of it is poor quality high sulfur oil nearly useless for refining gasoline for the US market.

And right now, oil prices are dropping.

Really, I don't think Venezeula has enough oil to make a big difference, especially since most of it is poor quality high sulfur oil nearly useless for refining gasoline for the US market.

And right now, oil prices are dropping.

What we export to the US is not high sulphur oil. china get that one for power plant procedures. What you get from us is really nice quality oil, in big amounts. Ever went to a Citgo oil station?

If it couldn't make a big difference, your goverment would had placed an embargo on us years ago. Also, it is easier to get and transport from here, than from the Middle East.

What we export to the US is not high sulphur oil. china get that one for power plant procedures. What you get from us is really nice quality oil, in big amounts. Ever went to a Citgo oil station?

If it couldn't make a big difference, your goverment would had placed an embargo on us years ago. Also, it is easier to get and transport from here, than from the Middle East.

At current market prices, which are slated to drop over the next year even more, Chavez could dump it in the sea.

He needs the money more than we need the oil from Venezuela. Point of fact.

It's the country's main source of cash flow.

Maybe we don't embargo because he isn't doing anything worth getting upset over.

Perhaps that's the same reason there's no carrier group off the coast, despite Chavez' repeated claims that there is.

At current market prices, which are slated to drop over the next year even more, Chavez could dump it in the sea.

He needs the money more than we need the oil from Venezuela. Point of fact.

It's the country's main source of cash flow.

Maybe we don't embargo because he isn't doing anything worth getting upset over.

Perhaps that's the same reason there's no carrier group off the coast, despite Chavez' repeated claims that there is.

Becuase if you don't get it, someone else is going to get the oil. You are not the only nation in need of gas. From my point of view, you still need more our oil than we need your money. After all, the money is one thing that we can get in any other place in the world.

It is indeed the country's main source of cash flow. And yes, the carrier group is Chávez favourite fantasy. You didn't hear when he said someone was trying to bring down his plane using a WWII bazooka. It was even funnier.

Becuase if you don't get it, someone else is going to get the oil. You are not the only nation in need of gas. From my point of view, you still need more our oil than we need your money. After all, the money is one thing that we can get in any other place in the world.

It is indeed the country's main source of cash flow. And yes, the carrier group is Chávez favourite fantasy. You didn't hear when he said someone was trying to bring down his plane using a WWII bazooka. It was even funnier.

In the same sense, we buy oil from other countries as well. Venezuela is not the only place to get it.

I guess you didn't realize how friendly we are with Libya now, who produces only the finest sweet crude ideal for gasoline.

And, if Chavez insists on giving the oil away to the poor, you're not going to get very much money.

Why would a women FROM Venezuela need a translation of her own language ?

I was (obviously!) providing that link for people who DO need one, silly.

In the same sense, we buy oil from other countries as well. Venezuela is not the only place to get it.

I guess you didn't realize how friendly we are with Libya now, who produces only the finest sweet crude ideal for gasoline.

And, if Chavez insists on giving the oil away to the poor, you're not going to get very much money.

Measure a line from Lybia to the USA, then do the same from Venezuela to the USA and tell me which one is shorter. That is the core of my point.

We're going to get sub standard medical personnel from Cuba, cheap cigars and sugar :( OH, but the people can survive on ideology, and that is everything that counts!

Measure a line from Lybia to the USA, then do the same from Venezuela to the USA and tell me which one is shorter. That is the core of my point.

We're going to get sub standard medical personnel from Cuba, cheap cigars and sugar :( OH, but the people can survive on ideology, and that is everything that counts!

After a while, the transport costs even out. Sure, Venezuela is closer, but if that was all that matters, we would not have compromised with Libya so we could buy their oil again. Grade does matter.

Fine, but what matters more. Backing anti-communists groups to trying and give Latin America stable capitalist governments...(see Chile)....or trying to stop the world from going to nuclear war?

Chile did not have a stable government with Pinochet, though it was capitalist. If it was so stable, Pinochet would not have had to murder and kidnap thousands of people, and torture hundreds of them. But I guess Pinochet's genocide against his own people is lass important than the Chilean economy, because it was supported by Kissinger, Reagan, Nixon, and Thatcher.

It is with this history of US involvement that Chavez has lived most of his life. It would not surprise me at all to find that the accusations against the USA with respect to the attempted coup against Chavez.

And the Cold War was just an excuse for US hegemony in Latin America. Latino socialism is home grown. We've never needed the USSR.

...snip (I agree with this part. It seems to be corroborated by reliable sources)...Chavez again alluded to U.S. government complicity in 9/11, a subject he had raised in a previous speech.

"And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists."

Amid the difficult translation, Chavez is clearly making reference to elements of the CIA being behind 9/11.

I think Chavez was referring to the assasination of Orlando Letelier, former Chilean ambassador to the USA. He and his US assistant were killed in a car bomb attack in Washington DC in 1976.

Ya la presidenta Michelle Bachelet recordaba hace unos días —perdón, hace unos minutos— el horrible asesinato del ex canciller chileno Orlando Letelier; yo sólo agregaría lo siguiente: los culpables están libres y los culpables de aquel hecho donde murió también una ciudadana estadounidense, son norteamericanos, de la CIA, terroristas de la CIA.

And for another perspective; An article about and an interview with Chavez...

CHAVEZ' COMMENTS: STRATEGY OR RAVINGS OF MADMAN?

September, 21, 2006


"I've known Hugo Chavez for years, let me tell you that man knows a diablo when he sees one." -- Greg Palast

Watch my recent exclusive BBC interview with President Chavez (http://www.gregpalast.com/mailing/link.php?URL=aHR0cDovL25ld3MuYmJjLmNvLnVrL29sbWVkaWEvMTk4NTAwMC92aWRlby9fMTk4NTY3MF92ZW4yMl9wYWxhc3R fdmkucmFt&Name=&EncryptedMemberID=MTYyOTg%3D&CampaignID=34&CampaignStatisticsID=12&Demo=0)

Read the article here (http://www.gregpalast.com/mailing/link.php?URL=aHR0cDovL25ld3MuYmJjLmNvLnVrLzIvaGkvcHJvZ3JhbW1lcy9uZXdzbmlnaHQvYXJjaGl2ZS8xOTg1NjcwLnN 0bQ%3D%3D&Name=&EncryptedMemberID=MTYyOTg%3D&CampaignID=34&CampaignStatisticsID=12&Demo=0)

Also watch my LinkTV Chavez Special "Finding Bolivar's Heir"

"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Large File) (http://www.gregpalast.com/mailing/link.php?URL=aHR0cDovL2lhMzAwMjExLnVzLmFyY2hpdmUub3JnLzEvaXRlbXMvYm9saXZhcnNfMjAwNjA2MTIvYm9saXZhcnN fMjAwNjA2MTJfMjU2a2IubW92&Name=&EncryptedMemberID=MTYyOTg%3D&CampaignID=34&CampaignStatisticsID=12&Demo=0)

"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Small File) (http://www.gregpalast.com/mailing/link.php?URL=aHR0cDovL2lhMzAwMjExLnVzLmFyY2hpdmUub3JnLzEvaXRlbXMvYm9saXZhcnNfMjAwNjA2MTIvYm9saXZhcnN fMjAwNjA2MTJfNjRrYi5tb3Y%3D&Name=&EncryptedMemberID=MTYyOTg%3D&CampaignID=34&CampaignStatisticsID=12&Demo=0)

*****

From The Progressive
By Greg Palast

You'd think George Bush would get down on his knees and kiss Hugo Chavez's behind. Not only has Chavez delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States. And not only did he offer to bring aid to the victims of Katrina. In my interview with the president of Venezuela on March 28, he made Bush the following astonishing offer: Chavez would drop the price of oil to $50 a barrel, "not too high, a fair price," he said -- a third less than the $75 a barrel for oil recently posted on the spot market. That would bring down the price at the pump by about a buck, from $3 to $2 a gallon.

But our President has basically told Chavez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chavez has the power to pull it off -- and the method in the seeming madness of his "take-my-oil-please!" deal.

Venezuela, Chavez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis' reserves. However, most of Venezuela's mega-horde of crude is in the More...form of "extra-heavy" oil -- liquid asphalt -- which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil's price -- and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago -- would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chavez's offer: Drop the price to $50 -- and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela's investment in heavy oil.

But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn't like that one bit. It comes down to "petro-dollars." When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn't because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.

The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush's $2 trillion rise in the nation's debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.

Chavez would put an end to all that. He'll sell us oil relatively cheaply -- but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chavez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.

Chavez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a "tropical IMF." And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an "International Humanitarian Fund," an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chavez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel's reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.

Politically, Venezuela is torn in two. Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution," a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal—a progressive income tax, public works, social security, cheap electricity -- makes him wildly popular with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor. His critics, a four-centuries' old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.

Chavez's government, which used to brush off these critics, has turned aggressive on them. I challenged Chavez several times over charges brought against Sumate, his main opposition group. The two founders of the nongovernmental organization, which led the recall campaign against Chavez, face eight years in prison for taking money from the Bush Administration and the International Republican [Party] Institute. No nation permits foreign funding of political campaigns, but the charges (no one is in jail) seem like a heavy hammer to use on the minor infractions of these pathetic gadflies.

Bush's reaction to Chavez has been a mix of hostility and provocation. Washington supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly denounced him. The revised National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in March, says, "In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region."

So when the Reverend Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, told his faithful in August 2005 that Chavez has to go, it was not unreasonable to assume that he was articulating an Administration wish. "If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him," Robertson said, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

There are only two ways to defeat the rise of Chavez as the New Abdullah of the Americas. First, the unattractive option: Cut the price of oil below $30 a barrel. That would make Chavez's crude worthless. Or, option two: Kill him.

Q: Your opponents are saying that you are beginning a slow-motion dictatorship. Is that what we are seeing?

Hugo Chavez: They have been saying that for a long time. When they're short of ideas, any excuse will do as a vehicle for lies. That is totally false. I would like to invite the citizens of Great Britain and the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens of the world to come here and walk freely through the streets of Venezuela, to talk to anyone they want, to watch television, to read the papers. We are building a true democracy, with human rights for everyone, social rights, education, health care, pensions, social security, and jobs.

Q: Some of your opponents are being charged with the crime of taking money from George Bush. Will you send them to jail?

Chavez: It's not up to me to decide that. We have the institutions that do that. These people have admitted they have received money from the government of the United States. It's up to the prosecutors to decide what to do, but the truth is that we can't allow the U.S. to finance the destabilization of our country. What would happen if we financed somebody in the U.S. to destabilize the government of George Bush? They would go to prison, certainly.

Q: How do you respond to Bush's charge that you are destabilizing the region and interfering in the elections of other Latin American countries?

Chavez: Mr. Bush is an illegitimate President. In Florida, his brother Jeb deleted many black voters from the electoral registers. So this President is the result of a fraud. Not only that, he is also currently applying a dictatorship in the U.S. People can be put in jail without being charged. They tap phones without court orders. They check what books people take out of public libraries. They arrested Cindy Sheehan because of a T-shirt she was wearing demanding the return of the troops from Iraq. They abuse blacks and Latinos. And if we are going to talk about meddling in other countries, then the U.S. is the champion of meddling in other people's affairs. They invaded Guatemala, they overthrew Salvador Allende, invaded Panama and the Dominican Republic. They were involved in the coup d'etat in Argentina thirty years ago.

Q: Is the U.S. interfering in your elections here?

Chavez: They have interfered for 200 years. They have tried to prevent us from winning the elections, they supported the coup d'etat, they gave millions of dollars to the coup plotters, they supported the media, newspapers, outlaw movements, military intervention, and espionage. But here the empire is finished, and I believe that before the end of this century, it will be finished in the rest of the world. We will see the burial of the empire of the eagle.

Q: You don't interfere in the elections of other nations in Latin America?

Chavez: Absolutely not. I concern myself with Venezuela. However, what's going on now is that some rightwing movements are transforming me into a pawn in the domestic politics of their countries, by making statements that are groundless. About candidates like Morales [of Bolivia], for example. They said I financed the candidacy of President Lula [of Brazil], which is totally false. They said I financed the candidacy of Kirchner [of Argentina], which is totally false. In Mexico, recently, the rightwing party has used my image for its own profit. What’s happened is that in Latin America there is a turn to the left. Latin Americans have gotten tired of the Washington consensus -- a neoliberalism that has aggravated misery and poverty.

Q: You have spent millions of dollars of your nation's oil wealth throughout Latin America. Are you really helping these other nations or are you simply buying political support for your regime?

Chavez: We are brothers and sisters. That's one of the reasons for the wrath of the empire. You know that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world. And the biggest gas reserves in this hemisphere, the eighth in the world. Up until seven years ago, Venezuela was a U.S. oil colony. All of our oil was going up to the north, and the gas was being used by the U.S. and not by us. Now we are diversifying. Our oil is helping the poor. We are selling to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, some Central American countries, Uruguay, Argentina.

Q: And the Bronx?

Chavez: In the Bronx it is a donation. In all the cases I just mentioned before, it is trade. However, it's not free trade, just fair commerce. We also have an international humanitarian fund as a result of oil revenues.

Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?

Chavez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn't matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.

Q: Are you replacing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as "Daddy Big Bucks"?

Chavez: I do wish that the IMF and the World Bank would disappear soon.

Q: And it would be the Bank of Hugo?

Chavez: No. The International Humanitarian Bank. We are just creating an alternative way to conduct financial exchange. It is based on cooperation. For example, we send oil to Uruguay for their refinery and they are paying us with cows.

Q: Milk for oil.

Chavez: That's right. Milk for oil. The Argentineans also pay us with cows. And they give us medical equipment to combat cancer. It's a transfer of technology. We also exchange oil for software technology. Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade. We believe in fair trade and exchange, not competition but cooperation. I'm not giving away oil for free. Just using oil, first to benefit our people, to relieve poverty. For a hundred years we have been one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world but with a 60 percent poverty rate and now we are canceling the historical debt.

Q: Speaking of the free market, you've demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?

Chavez: No, we don't want them to go, and I don't think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It's simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn’t pay taxes. They didn't pay royalties. They didn't give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn't comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn't pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.

Q: You've said that you imagine the price of oil rising to $100 dollars per barrel. Are you going to use your new oil wealth to squeeze the planet?

Chavez: No, no. We have no intention of squeezing anyone. Now, we have been squeezed and very hard. Five hundred years of squeezing us and stifling us, the people of the South. I do believe that demand is increasing and supply is dropping and the large reservoirs are running out. But it's not our fault. In the future, there must be an agreement between the large consumers and the large producers.

Q: What happens when the oil money runs out, what happens when the price of oil falls as it always does? Will the
Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chavez simply collapse because there's no money to pay for the big free ride?

Chavez: I don't think it will collapse, in the unlikely case of oil running out today. The revolution will survive. It does not rely solely on oil for its survival. There is a national will, there is a national idea, a national project. However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won't have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.

Q: But the revolution can come to an end if there's another coup and it succeeds. Do you believe Bush is still trying to overthrow your government?

Chavez: He would like to, but what you want is one thing, and what you cannot really obtain is another.

You'll notice that the price of oil is dropping in that direction, without Chavez's help. He doesn't pump enough oil from his own country to swing oil prices like that.

You'll notice that the price of oil is dropping in that direction, without Chavez's help. He doesn't pump enough oil from his own country to swing oil prices like that.

he is pulling Citgo out of several American states tho, which won't help much with car gas prices.

he is pulling Citgo out of several American states tho, which won't help much with car gas prices.

The prediction is that gas will be 1.15 a gallon by spring.

It's already 1.85 in Missouri.

Fine, but what matters more. Backing anti-communists groups to trying and give Latin America stable capitalist governments...(see Chile)....or trying to stop the world from going to nuclear war?

And let a bunch of death squads ("anti-communist groups") rampage for 30 odd years.....They elected Allende. Thats the "democracy and freedom" thing your chimp in chief keeps mouthing about in his speeches.

Nuclear war - bollocks. 9times out of 10 it was about local issues to do with land reform and a more equal society. Had the fat asses decided to back the reformers, they would have accepted the assistance. But they went with the forces of repression.

Gawd save America, without whom many a nun raper never would have got the Fort Benning t-shirt.

And right now, oil prices are dropping.
What???

What???

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/MOmetro.asp

Look..I understand that alot of people DONT like Bush, but in my opinion they have 0 credibility to say so if they are allies and back the insane Islamic Theocracy of Iran.

It seems like everything he says about us being evil are exactly the same things MOST OF THE WORLD says about Iran, yet he backs this country. :rolleyes:

Regardless of Chavezs credibility the same issues have been raised by much more credibile people time and time again. Because Chavez might have zero credibility, and I am not saying he doesn't, doesn't mean it gives the Bush administration more credibility in their own attacks.

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/MOmetro.asp

http://www.southcarolinagasprices.com/index.aspx?&area=Seneca&area=Union&area=Walhalla&area=Westminster

http://www.southcarolinagasprices.com/index.aspx?&area=Seneca&area=Union&area=Walhalla&area=Westminster

It is true that Chavez is using oil money to support his social policies, but he is aware of the problems with relying solely on oil to prop up his economy.

In his own words:

However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won't have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.

I may be incorrect, but I believe that other oil-rich countries are implementing similar programs.

COMMENTARY: Hugo Chavez' address to the UN Wednesday left no doubt in any sane person's mind that his hatred for America runs deep and wide. IMHO, he's leading his country down a path that will eventually ruin it economically, and now he's wanting others to follow the same path. It's suicidal. And of course the Democratic Left applauded the denunciation of their own Country. That also is suicidal. I often find myself wondering what possesses such people.


Hugo Chavez dislikes American IMPERIALISM. The crowd gave a standing ovation to his colourful denunciation of this regime's policy in Iraq.

In other words, Chavez speaks for about two-thirds of Americans, too.

In other words, Chavez speaks for about two-thirds of Americans, too.

Well said.

It doesn't require "hindsight" to realize that supporting brutal dictators and murderous fanatics might not be the best idea.

More like "common sense."

Yet, that's never stopped the U.S. government from doing so. :(

Well said.

Breath wasted, of course. I suspect Eut would burst into flames before he'd admit that most Americans don't think much of their president, either...

Breath wasted, of course. I suspect Eut would burst into flames before he'd admit that most Americans don't think much of their president, either...

Chance would be a fine thing.....

It is also highly ironic that those who support the US' "War on Terror" with no questions asked should, in the same breath, support terrorism. Just a slight contradiction there, methinks. "We're against terrorism! Terrorism is good!"

If they're your friends doing it, they're not terrorists. If they're your enemies, they are. To a right-winger, an anti-communist terrorist is a "freedom fighter." To a left-winger, a Marxist terrorist is a "freedom fighter." i.e., rightists would consider the Sandinistas terrorists (rightly so), but consider the equalling appalling contras "freedom fighters." Vice versa for left-wingers. But IMO, it shouldn't matter what ideology a terrorist follows. A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the motive.

It is true that Chavez is using oil money to support his social policies, but he is aware of the problems with relying solely on oil to prop up his economy.
I may be incorrect, but I believe that other oil-rich countries are implementing similar programs.

He overestimates the length of time venezueala will be able to rely on oil. 200 years from now that is quite a stretch. He better step up those plans if he has based them off the idea that oil will be raking in the money for his country that long.

People in the US have been calling Bush the devil for about 6 years, already, why is Chavez not allowed to join in? He only wants to be accepted by all the cool kids, is that so wrong?

Its so easy to take light of this... But the UN is not a form by which these comments should be slung. The United Nations is suppose to be a forum to foster peace, and neogotiation. A place to solve differences, not name call. And whether or not some democrats care to admit it, the United States choose Bush to represent us. When Chavez calls Bush the devil and stupid.. essentially calls the nation as such as well.

It always amazes me how much personal hate people can have for a politican because of his policy positions, when most people cant gather enough will power to go out and vote for themselves. The only reason why such a "stupid" person is in office, is because voters were the ones who put him there. Whether you voted for him or not.

the United States choose Bush to represent us.

We sure didn't choose him when he ran against Gore. And when your only offered two canidates with any chance of winning, and niether party could seem to come up with a good canidate in 2004 well that makes the choice a little hard. Though Kerry was the lesser evil by far, yet Bush still managed to get elected.

We sure didn't choose him when he ran against Gore. And when your only offered two canidates with any chance of winning, and niether party could seem to come up with a good canidate in 2004 well that makes the choice a little hard. Though Kerry was the lesser evil by far, yet Bush still managed to get elected.

REally.. cause last time i checked the electoral system was an engrained institution in the United States Constitution. Unless suddenly the people are having quibs over specifics of the Supreme law of the land.. to bring up the 2000 election is senseless. And as i recall Bush won an over whelming majority (along US electoral standards). [which only further cements the reality from the 2000 election] The American people chose bush... for better or worse.. and we use him as our representative.

REally.. cause last time i checked the electoral system was an engrained institution in the United States Constitution. Unless suddenly the people are having quibs over specifics of the Supreme law of the land.. to bring up the 2000 election is senseless. And as i recall Bush won an over whelming majority (along US electoral standards). [which only further cements the reality from the 2000 election] The American people chose bush... for better or worse.. and we use him as our representative.

if I remeber correctly it came down to who could take florida and I still have my questions about went on there. So tell me how does winning by one state equal winning an overwhelming majority electorally?

His critics, a four-centuries' old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.

Yeah right. Let's see...I'm white, ok. I am a second generation spanish, so the "400 years old" part do not apply. And my family has never ever have any invesment in the oil industry. As most families around here, actually, even the richy rich ones.

And still, he's a Castro-hugging Antichrist.

Eutrusca, you're running on an empty tank of gas expecting to get somewhere. This is the wrong crowd for your form of Mccarthyism. Welcome to logic, welcome to the future. You belong in a previous era.

(Chavez is) a Castro-hugging Antichrist. LOL :D

Eutrusca, you're running on an empty tank of gas expecting to get somewhere. This is the wrong crowd for your form of Mccarthyism. Welcome to logic, welcome to the future. You belong in a previous era.

Poor, poor Eutrusca.

You can't make the distinction between attacking Bush and attacking America. Such an easy distinction to perceive, such basic is the grade of logical thought it demands.

You see, 2/3 of America don't support Bush either. Are 2/3 of America anti-American now?

You either flame or simply ignore any good points answered against what you write. You don't get banned or DEATed because mods take pity in you - I can think of several reasons why, but mentioning them would make you cry "ageism" on me. So I won't.

Yet you fail to realize that your time is past. That your time here is past. That you're not part of the American mainstream, nor have been for about 30 years now. And that, here, you increasingly serve as a spectacle of how NOT to argue.

McCarthyism won't come back. Vietnam has come and gone, and the US lost, because it was incompetent. Deal with it in a mature manner instead of trying to repeat Vietnam through Iraq and obtaining the same result, killing many of the soldiers you claim to respect.

The Washington Times called for a coup in Brazil. I fail to see your outrage.

Chavez calls Bush the Devil, which is not a political statement per se, more of a personal one against a person that repeatedly tried to coup him out and kill him. And there's your outrage.

Does it not tire you? The selective bursts of outrage, the selective answers, the thrill of being the teflon troll of General even though nobody cares about what you write anymore?

Your time has come and gone. I do not say that because of your age - Noam Chomsky is older than you if I recall correctly, yet he managed to keep up with the times. Learn to, or else you'll be forever trapped in a world of "reds under the bed", while the outside world does not listen, nor care about, what you have to say.

Stop embarassing yourself.

Poor, poor Eutrusca.

Actually I believe that recent polls have Bush's support rates around 40% but the central message remains.

Actually I believe that recent polls have Bush's support rates around 40% but the central message remains.

40's the high water mark except for Rasmussen, which has been consistently higher than everyone else. The average as of this week was between 37 and 38, which is where it's been for the last few months.

Heikoku you entire tirade is idiotic. To state that McCarthyism (sp) is dead is completely and utterly false (watch the news sometime). YOu see McCarthyism is a broad generalization about fear in the populace and you cannot erase fear in the human population...anywhere period. McCarthyism may become less and less evdent but it will always remerge, just as it sadly seems destined to rise in the very near future.

Heikoku you entire tirade is idiotic. To state that McCarthyism (sp) is dead is completely and utterly false (watch the news sometime). YOu see McCarthyism is a broad generalization about fear in the populace and you cannot erase fear in the human population...anywhere period. McCarthyism may become less and less evdent but it will always remerge, just as it sadly seems destined to rise in the very near future.

I referred to the brand and function of McCarthyism that Eutrusca basically serves. I'm aware that fearmongering is alive and well. I'm aware that attacks on civil rights are alive and well. However, when I say that Eutrusca's time has come and gone, I point out that this kind of fearmongering being alive and well is NOT a good thing - and that his brand of it doesn't work anymore. Plus, my "entire" tirade becomes faulted because of one part of it?

I referred to the brand and function of McCarthyism that Eutrusca basically serves. I'm aware that fearmongering is alive and well. I'm aware that attacks on civil rights are alive and well. However, when I say that Eutrusca's time has come and gone, I point out that this kind of fearmongering being alive and well is NOT a good thing - and that his brand of it doesn't work anymore. Plus, my "entire" tirade becomes faulted because of one part of it?

Well as long as you were aware of that, I was afraid you were living in a bubble....or a cave *gasp* you must be Osama!!!! omg :D

And I was just referring to you most recent post, in which your attack on Etrusca and his McCarthistic views appeared and seeing as how your statements about McCarthyism are a major point of it I would have to say so. But it is a stupid point ot argue contention over.

Well as long as you were aware of that, I was afraid you were living in a bubble....or a cave *gasp* you must be Osama!!!! omg :D

And I was just referring to you most recent post, in which your attack on Etrusca and his McCarthistic views appeared and seeing as how your statements about McCarthyism are a major point of it I would have to say so. But it is a stupid point ot argue contention over.

Oh, my point was that his particular style (overt, witch-hunt-and-proud-of-it) of fearmongering is outdated. Regardless, the rest remained too: Eutrusca should pick between the Vietnam war and now. He does NOT get to live in both times, only in one of them.

McCarthyism won't come back. Vietnam has come and gone, and the US lost, because it was incompetent. Deal with it in a mature manner instead of trying to repeat Vietnam through Iraq and obtaining the same result, killing many of the soldiers you claim to respect.
I don't think Eut is concerned with any of those things in this thread. At the moment you just seem to be erecting strawmen.


The Washington Times called for a coup in Brazil. I fail to see your outrage.

Given that you're on an ad hominem tirade, I would politely ask that you source this statement. I've not heard of this prior.

Chavez calls Bush the Devil, which is not a political statement per se, more of a personal one against a person that repeatedly tried to coup him out and kill him. And there's your outrage.
Once again, would you politely give me a source on this. The only 'evidence' of American involvement in the matter comes from Mr. Chavez, and those claims are entirely unsupported.

Does it not tire you? The selective bursts of outrage, the selective answers, the thrill of being the teflon troll of General even though nobody cares about what you write anymore?

Your time has come and gone. I do not say that because of your age - Noam Chomsky is older than you if I recall correctly, yet he managed to keep up with the times. Learn to, or else you'll be forever trapped in a world of "reds under the bed", while the outside world does not listen, nor care about, what you have to say.
Mr. Chomsky is utterly distasteful and totally foolish.

Mr. Chomsky is utterly distasteful and totally foolish.

Justify that.

Justify that.

Like hell, I'm piss drunk and trolling.

If I must though, Mr. Chomsky couches an extremely shrill, almost irrational hatred of the US in an academic cloak. He has come to the absolutely absurd conclusion that American foreign policy is set by interested elites, the virtual image of the "smoky back room" filled with guys wearing top hats, dictating their commands to the US government. His knee jerk reaction to virtually every US policy action is nearly predicatable as well. He should have stuck to linguistics.

Not only that, but he's fallen victim to Godwin.

Like hell, I'm piss drunk and trolling.

Oh, nevermind then.

He can be criticized legitimately on a number of grounds, chiefly for having an analysis that sometimes descends into knee-jerk anti-imperialism (which I do not mean to contrast with pro-imperialism, but rather with anti-nationalist anarchist anti-imperialism) and solutions that reek of liberalism (multilateral aggression is better than unilateral aggression, etc.)

His anarchist ideology also maintains too many relics of the status quo.

I highly doubt that those are what you were thinking of, but I didn't want to give the impression that I'm a devoted fan.

Uh ... I realize you were only a gleam in your old man's eye at the time, but you have at least heard of The Cold War, yes? You don't have to worry about the Russian nuclear "sword of Damocles" hanging over your head because people like Ronald Reagan kept pushing at the USSR's empire until it fell over of its own weight. Be glad. People back then were scared to death that we were all going to die in some nuclear Ragnarok.

No, don't dodge the challenge with vague rhetoric.

Explain how supporting Saddam Hussein as a counterweight to Iran and supporting fundamentalist terror in Afghanistan had the slightest to do with protecting anyone's future (except that of US hegemony.)

I don't think Eut is concerned with any of those things in this thread. At the moment you just seem to be erecting strawmen.


Given that you're on an ad hominem tirade, I would politely ask that you source this statement. I've not heard of this prior.


Once again, would you politely give me a source on this. The only 'evidence' of American involvement in the matter comes from Mr. Chavez, and those claims are entirely unsupported.

Does it not tire you? The selective bursts of outrage, the selective answers, the thrill of being the teflon troll of General even though nobody cares about what you write anymore?


Mr. Chomsky is utterly distasteful and totally foolish.

Stop embarassing yourself.

Poor, poor Eutrusca.[/QUOTE]

Seeing as almost ALL of your "points", and I use the term with incredible liberty, are mere opinions, and seeing as you failed to reproach Eutrusca for claiming that liberals lacked a father figure/spine/etc and other bits of obvious and way more outright FLAMING, I will content myself in answering your demands for the article by the tabloid you call the Washington Times:

http://www.monroefoundation.org/08162002.html

The article was published in the Washington Times first. And I've seen other, more recent ones, calling for the equivalent to coups as well.

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/pyne/qtr4/1008.htm

"The Administration should work with Brazil's traditionally conservative military..."

Last time this happened? 1964, coup d'etat in Brazil that turned it into a damn dystopia for 20 years, all in name of "democracy", just like Bush acts.

Seeing as almost ALL of your "points", and I use the term with incredible liberty, are mere opinions, and seeing as you failed to reproach Eutrusca for claiming that liberals lacked a father figure/spine/etc and other bits of obvious and way more outright FLAMING, I will content myself in answering your demands for the article by the tabloid you call the Washington Times:

http://www.monroefoundation.org/08162002.html

The article was published in the Washington Times first. And I've seen other, more recent ones, calling for the equivalent to coups as well.

However, let me go further: Chavez was elected. Three times. Yet Bush has called for his remotion. And I saw no outrage by Eutrusca.

If I must though, Mr. Chomsky couches an extremely shrill, almost irrational hatred of the US in an academic cloak. He has come to the absolutely absurd conclusion that American foreign policy is set by interested elites, the virtual image of the "smoky back room" filled with guys wearing top hats, dictating their commands to the US government.

And this is "absolutely absurd"... how? The "virtual image" is false, but it is also a straw man.

AHEM! [ slings back as good as he's getting ] It's not the PEOPLE I have a problem with, it's their LEADERS! :D
Odd that you understand the difference between criticising the Venzulan president and criticising it's people, yet you can't understand there's a difference between criticising the US president and criticising it's people.

Guess if you did, you'd have nothing to get your little panties in a knot about, would you?

Trying to get rid of Hugo twice means he probably takes Bushs shite personally.
Hell, Saddam just tried to kill Bush's Daddy once and look how Bush retaliated.
I think Chavez calling Bush the devil is extremely mild in comparison. He should be congratulated on his restraint.

And this is "absolutely absurd"... how? The "virtual image" is false, but it is also a straw man.
The typical strawman that the Right throw at Chomsky in order to discredit him. All it proves to me is that these people have not read or not understood Chomsky at all.

There's far more you could debate Chomsky's opinions on than creating a pathetic strawman like this.

Odd that you understand the difference between criticising the Venzulan president and criticising it's people, yet you can't understand there's a difference between criticising the US president and criticising it's people.

Guess if you did, you'd have nothing to get your little panties in a knot about, would you?

That's because in one case the difference works for his twisted view, and in the other, against it.

Once again, would you politely give me a source on this. The only 'evidence' of American involvement in the matter comes from Mr. Chavez, and those claims are entirely unsupported.


"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere. "
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html




I might also ask for a 'compare and contrast' excerise to be performed, involving the current coup in Thailand and the American reaction, and what happened in Venezuela.

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere. "
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html




I might also ask for a 'compare and contrast' excerise to be performed, involving the current coup in Thailand and the American reaction, and what happened in Venezuela.

Shhh! Bush wants to get democracy to everyone, remember? Contradictions in his way to bring about the goal are imaginary and could be done away with some doublethink, so start ignoring these contradictions unless you want something doubleplusungood happening to you. :D

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere. "
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html


Although we heavily suppose that there were a wing of certain political parties here that sought american support in order to overthrow Chávez, during the events of April 2002, said involvement is still unproven.

At best, it is a "supposed" involvement. What happened those days is not entirely clarified. What I can tell you is that everything started with a bunch of Chávez's supporters firing against an unarmed crowd of civilians. The goverment not taking actions against them was the beginning of something that strangely ended with a supposed "resign" of the President and a weird Corporate owner taking charge.

Perhaps said corporate owner tried to raise into power because he had been promised american support. However, that same unilateral rise to power was what helped Chávez to return, although.