Chavez's Speech - full text

[Nbadan]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/05/un.summit.names.reut/65.venezuela.hugo.chavez.jpg
'Bush is the Devil'

Address to the United Nations
Rise Up Against the Empire
By HUGO CHAVEZ


Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." "And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's yesterday, or President Mullah's . Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Sylvia Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

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.

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 plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

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.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT3EZG4YSL4) is the video on Youtube, but it's not translated, it's in Spanish...

[smeagol]

What a fucking moron!

[boutons_]

A brilliant, exemplary beacon in dubya's "freedrom project". :lol

VZ has oil, VZ is seen as security risk (fomenting popularism in the region, much like Repug' s own rabble rousing popularism), when do we invade?

[velik_m]

this is a funny read. :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

A brilliant, exemplary beacon in dubya's "freedrom project". :lol

VZ has oil, VZ is seen as security risk (fomenting popularism in the region, much like Repug' s own rabble rousing popularism), when do we invade?



No..you don't get it.. We are going to liberate them!

[mcornelio]

George Bush Hates Black People!

[Ocotillo]

http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/09/neocon1.jpg

[leemajors]

is aligning yourself with castro the best way to proceed? it's like screaming at a propaganda machine to blackball you further isn't it?

[smeagol]

The part the US should take notice is the clapping and the cheering by other UN members

[spurster]

Can't any democratic country elect someone sensible?

[smeagol]

Can't any democratic country elect someone sensible?
So true.

[101A]

Can't any democratic country elect someone sensible?

What sensible person would want the job?

[RandomGuy]

The part the US should take notice is the clapping and the cheering by other UN members

A direct result of 6 years of failed Bush foreign policy.

Bush's short sighted policies are having an effect I predicted, and this effect will only get worse over time, until someone with a better understanding of the world takes the oval office.

People and governments who don't actively support terrorism, will be inclined less and less to actively help us root out those who would do us harm.

I am not talking about official policy to tacitly help terrorists. But rather the actions of individuals who don't like us to not check passports as closely, or to allow overt access to our law enforcement officials. Individuals who slowly over time gain a more and more negative view of our country will do less and less to help us.

Collectively that adds up to a lot more freedom of action for Al Qaeda to operate.

In this, Bush has made us less secure by his actions, and will continue to make us less secure as time goes by.

Those who think that Iraq is "giving the terrorists a platform" to attack troops instead of attacking us here, are partially right. It IS giving them a platform, and a highly visible one, from which to "prove" that they are right about us. The true impact of the bad PR will be felt long down the road.

When that time comes, as it I know it will, the culpability will be DIRECTLY attributable to the Bush presidency.

[Sec24Row7]

All of you seriously need to read Machiavelli.

Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

[George W Bush]

"w" is the antichrist?

Who told you?!

[clambake]

Did Machiavelli ever have to consider nuclear events?

[RandomGuy]

All of you seriously need to read Machiavelli.

Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Machiavelli is full of shit.

In the long term, moral authority has trumped naked power every time.

[boutons_]

"naked power every time."

.... but trumping can takes decades, eg, Russian/Eastern Bloc, which failed not because of the moral issues, but because Russia's Afghan invasion/war sucked up so many resources from an industrial economy that was weak from mis-management while the price of oil, (fuck, oil keeps popping up everywhere, doesn't it!), Russia's primary source of hard, spendable currency, in the mid 80s went through the floor as the world adjusted to the Iranian oil shock.

Lech swinging from the shipyard gates and Germans sledgehammering the Berlin wall were great TV and moral stories, but the Russia was simply in no position to maintain its control for financial/resource reasons, not as a result of losing a moral battle to superior morality.

So high oil prices are great for VZ and Iran, and of course for US non-ally Russia, because it gives them the resources to get into all kinds of mischief.

the US's primary INTEREST in the Middle East is oil. Israel's fate is important, but if US interest were JUST Israel, the situation would be a lot simpler, and the US wouldn't be in Iraq.

[cheguevara]

hahahaha Chavez is a funny mofo. He makes UN meetings interesting. At least he speaks his mind and does not look like Bush who has this ackward look in his face everytime he speaks in public.

Remember when Bush was complaining the Euro meetings were so boring, well he must be happy now at least he gets some entertainment between his bathroom breaks.

[Spurminator]

hahahaha Chavez is a funny mofo. He makes UN meetings interesting. At least he speaks his mind and does not look like Bush who has this ackward look in his face everytime he speaks in public.


Yeah, that's what I look for in a leader... Charisma. As long as you can make me giggle, go ahead and dissolve the checks and balances in your government to give yourself absolute power. I just wanna laugh.

[Crookshanks]

HUGO'S BIG LIES

WHAT TYRANT DIDN'T TELL U.N.

By THOR HALVORSSEN

September 21, 2006 -- JUST a few days before his rant at the United Nations yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave a speech in Caracas playing up the most obscene 9/11 conspiracy theory - that the attacks were planned by the Bush administration as a pretext for war.

Yes, on Sept. 12, Chavez said, "Maybe it was even the imperialist North American power that planned and drove this terrorist attack against its own people and the citizens of the world to justify the aggressions immediately following against Iraq, Iran and threats against all of us, against Venezuela as well."

This guy is really, really big on "the Big Lie."

Yesterday's fire-breathing speech - carried live by dozens of world TV broadcasters - was nonstop hate, aimed at the United States, President Bush, Israel and the United Nations itself, along with Western democracy and economic liberalism.

Calling "world dictator" George Bush the "devil" over and over again, he discussed everything from CIA plots to assassinate him to how he - along with Cuba, Iran and the non-aligned countries - will save the world from imperialist doom.

Chavez has said the United States is "afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices," yet Chavez has suffocated all dissent in his own backyard. Beyond rewriting the Constitution to bolster his legal power, he's passed a law banning "the use of language deemed to be insulting to the President of the Republic."

Indeed, any expression of dissent, public or in private, against any public official is punishable with prison.

Francisco Usón - a former minister in Chavez's own Cabinet - recently drew a six-year jail term for expressing an opinion on television. Carlos Ortega - the president of Venezuela's AFL-CIO-affiliated federation of workers - got a 16-year sentence for instigating a legal strike despite protests by the International Labor Organization of this unspeakable violation of human rights. (Ortega escaped from prison last month.)

Chavez claimed yesterday that the United States protects terrorism while his own government is "fully committed to combating terrorism and violence." In fact, Chavez has demonstrably protected and armed the FARC terrorists of next-door Colombia. (He's also presided during the greatest crime wave in Venezuelan history, with a death toll exponentially larger than any previous government's.)

Chavez denounced capitalism as the generator of "mere poverty." Yet, thanks to a capitalist oil boom, he has profited from the richest Venezuelan government in history - but squandered its wealth on a new Venezuelan oligarchy of petro-millionaires masquerading as government officials. Meanwhile, misery and malnutrition are at a historic high.

Chavez railed against Western-style democracy. Yet it was western style democracy that brought him into power (after his own armed coup failed) and may remove him in the end. This is why he does everything he can to hollow and weaken democratic institutions.

He has frequently praised the "participatory" models of Libya, North Korea and Cuba as ideal forms of government - countries where rulers, accountable to no one, torture, imprison and murder their opponents.

As for his references to peace and world understanding, well: The Venezuelan leader has increased military spending to $10 billion a year, dwarfing all social programs, education and health budgets - and vastly above the nation's previous arms spending. He's bought 100,000 automatic assault rifles, 53 Mi-35 assault helicopters and several supersonic fighter-bombers from Russia, as well as transport planes, patrol boats and speedboats from Spain. He has also signed an agreement with Russia to build Latin American's first-ever Kalashnikov factory.

The worst may be his roars about the threat of imperialism - for, in Latin America, Hugo Chavez is the face of modern imperialism. Chavez's grants to Fidel Castro alone are larger than all United States aid packages in the Americas. He helped get coca-grower Evo Morales elected president of Bolivia. He is putting Venezuelan oil cash behind Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

His neighbors resent it: Voters in Peru and Mexico recently rejected Chavez-backed candidates (Ollanta Humalla and Andres Lopez Obrador) in good part because of the Chavez taint.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton dismissed Chavez's thundering rhetoric yesterday as cartoonish. Other leaders have referred to him as a buffoon and a joke. But, like Korea's much-ridiculed Kim Jong Il, Chavez poses a deadly threat not only to his own nation but to the peace and security of the region.

He has signed more than 80 international agreements with Iran, stating repeatedly that if international action is taken to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capacity, Venezuela will attack the United States. His own "hypothetical" nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Chavez was brandishing a book by MIT professor Noam Chomsky yesterday. He's plainly taken one of Chomsky's maxims to heart: "If you repeat it loudly enough, it will become the truth."

Thor Halvorssen is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation.

[Hook Dem]

HUGO'S BIG LIES

WHAT TYRANT DIDN'T TELL U.N.

By THOR HALVORSSEN

September 21, 2006 -- JUST a few days before his rant at the United Nations yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave a speech in Caracas playing up the most obscene 9/11 conspiracy theory - that the attacks were planned by the Bush administration as a pretext for war.

Yes, on Sept. 12, Chavez said, "Maybe it was even the imperialist North American power that planned and drove this terrorist attack against its own people and the citizens of the world to justify the aggressions immediately following against Iraq, Iran and threats against all of us, against Venezuela as well."

This guy is really, really big on "the Big Lie."

Yesterday's fire-breathing speech - carried live by dozens of world TV broadcasters - was nonstop hate, aimed at the United States, President Bush, Israel and the United Nations itself, along with Western democracy and economic liberalism.

Calling "world dictator" George Bush the "devil" over and over again, he discussed everything from CIA plots to assassinate him to how he - along with Cuba, Iran and the non-aligned countries - will save the world from imperialist doom.

Chavez has said the United States is "afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices," yet Chavez has suffocated all dissent in his own backyard. Beyond rewriting the Constitution to bolster his legal power, he's passed a law banning "the use of language deemed to be insulting to the President of the Republic."

Indeed, any expression of dissent, public or in private, against any public official is punishable with prison.

Francisco Usón - a former minister in Chavez's own Cabinet - recently drew a six-year jail term for expressing an opinion on television. Carlos Ortega - the president of Venezuela's AFL-CIO-affiliated federation of workers - got a 16-year sentence for instigating a legal strike despite protests by the International Labor Organization of this unspeakable violation of human rights. (Ortega escaped from prison last month.)

Chavez claimed yesterday that the United States protects terrorism while his own government is "fully committed to combating terrorism and violence." In fact, Chavez has demonstrably protected and armed the FARC terrorists of next-door Colombia. (He's also presided during the greatest crime wave in Venezuelan history, with a death toll exponentially larger than any previous government's.)

Chavez denounced capitalism as the generator of "mere poverty." Yet, thanks to a capitalist oil boom, he has profited from the richest Venezuelan government in history - but squandered its wealth on a new Venezuelan oligarchy of petro-millionaires masquerading as government officials. Meanwhile, misery and malnutrition are at a historic high.

Chavez railed against Western-style democracy. Yet it was western style democracy that brought him into power (after his own armed coup failed) and may remove him in the end. This is why he does everything he can to hollow and weaken democratic institutions.

He has frequently praised the "participatory" models of Libya, North Korea and Cuba as ideal forms of government - countries where rulers, accountable to no one, torture, imprison and murder their opponents.

As for his references to peace and world understanding, well: The Venezuelan leader has increased military spending to $10 billion a year, dwarfing all social programs, education and health budgets - and vastly above the nation's previous arms spending. He's bought 100,000 automatic assault rifles, 53 Mi-35 assault helicopters and several supersonic fighter-bombers from Russia, as well as transport planes, patrol boats and speedboats from Spain. He has also signed an agreement with Russia to build Latin American's first-ever Kalashnikov factory.

The worst may be his roars about the threat of imperialism - for, in Latin America, Hugo Chavez is the face of modern imperialism. Chavez's grants to Fidel Castro alone are larger than all United States aid packages in the Americas. He helped get coca-grower Evo Morales elected president of Bolivia. He is putting Venezuelan oil cash behind Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

His neighbors resent it: Voters in Peru and Mexico recently rejected Chavez-backed candidates (Ollanta Humalla and Andres Lopez Obrador) in good part because of the Chavez taint.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton dismissed Chavez's thundering rhetoric yesterday as cartoonish. Other leaders have referred to him as a buffoon and a joke. But, like Korea's much-ridiculed Kim Jong Il, Chavez poses a deadly threat not only to his own nation but to the peace and security of the region.

He has signed more than 80 international agreements with Iran, stating repeatedly that if international action is taken to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capacity, Venezuela will attack the United States. His own "hypothetical" nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Chavez was brandishing a book by MIT professor Noam Chomsky yesterday. He's plainly taken one of Chomsky's maxims to heart: "If you repeat it loudly enough, it will become the truth."

Thor Halvorssen is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation.
And that is Chavez in a nutshell!

[Crookshanks]

Thank you Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Rangel - WOW! That's something I never thought I'd say - but I just want to give them credit for standing up for the President and calling out Chavez. You can read their remarks on the Drudge Report.

[ChumpDumper]

Why does anyone pay attention to this guy?

[leemajors]

Why does anyone pay attention to this guy?

i thought the revolution will not be televised was a pretty interesting documentary about the coup in venezuela, he played it up pretty good. then i found out more about dude after i watched it....

[Yonivore]

Noam Chomsky was available for comment. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/world/21speeches.html?ex=1316491200&en=9b618b475e36c799&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)


[Chavez] brandished a copy of Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" and recommended it to members of the General Assembly to read. Later, he told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died. (Mr. Chomsky, 77, is still alive.)
He may of been thinking of Fidel Castro.

[Yonivore]

Thank you Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Rangel - WOW! That's something I never thought I'd say - but I just want to give them credit for standing up for the President and calling out Chavez. You can read their remarks on the Drudge Report.
Yeah, well, what choice did they have? To have done any less would have further damaged Democrat prospects in November.

[Crookshanks]

Yeah, well, what choice did they have? To have done any less would have further damaged Democrat prospects in November.

Well yeah, I was thinking that too - but still, it was nice to hear it. It's kinda like this - I can beat up on my brother, but don't anybody else try it or I'll kick your butt! :lol

[rasho8]

Anyone not buying Citgo gas anymore? Seems theres a wave of anti-Citgo going on among the rightwingers after that speech... I shop at Valero cause its close to my house.

[Nbadan]

i thought the revolution will not be televised was a pretty interesting documentary about the coup in venezuela, he played it up pretty good. then i found out more about dude after i watched it....

But are you sure what you found out was real? Remember that there was a previous U.S. financed coup attempt against Chavez and all the ringleaders fled to the U.S. or are still living in Venezuela. Can you imagine if that happened in the US? How restricted would descent speech be here?

[Yonivore]

Anyone not buying Citgo gas anymore? Seems theres a wave of anti-Citgo going on among the rightwingers after that speech... I shop at Valero cause its close to my house.
I don't buy it now so, I have nothing to quit.

[Yonivore]

Here's one Democrat that has the balls to be a real idiot.

Harkin defends Venezuelan President's U-N speech against Bush (http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=020BFC5A-FA7D-42CC-9BA6A4ED9DA063B8)


Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy.

Harkin says Bush came to office saying he wanted a new humility in foreign policy in reaching out to other countries, but Harkin says Bush's actual policy has been heavy handed. Harkin says the anger against Bush is generated from the Iraq war, which Harkin says was "unnecessary."

Harkin says, "We tend to forget that a few days after 9-1-1 thousands, thousands of Iranians marched in a candlelight procession in Teheran in support of the United States. Every Muslim country was basically on our side. Just think, in five years, President Bush has squandered all that." Harkin says the U.S. has put billions of dollars into the Iraq war, when it could be helping poor countries with things like clean water, medical aid and education.

[Nbadan]

Venezuela's Chavez more than doubles heating oil program for U.S. poor
The Associated Press
Published: September 21, 2006


NEW YORK Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Thursday promised to double the amount of discounted heating oil his country is shipping to needy Americans, while also using his appearance at a Harlem church as an opportunity to deride President George W. Bush as an "alcoholic and a sick man."

Chavez's latest barb came a day after he captured the spotlight at the U.N. General Assembly during his speech in which he dubbed Bush "the devil" and accused Washington of "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world."

"He's an alcoholic and a sick man," Chavez said of Bush, receiving a round of applause from people in the crowd, which included actor Danny Glover, activists and other supporters.

Chavez's pledge of more discounted heating oil was made during his visit to Harlem's Mount Olive Baptist Church where supporters chanted his name:

IHT (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/21/america/NA_GEN_US_Venezuela_Chavez.php)

A ruth-less, terra-supporting dictator with a heart?

[Yonivore]

A ruth-less, terra-supporting dictator with a heart?
I think you confuse cunning with compassion.

[ChumpDumper]

That's about the only thing newsworthy about Chavez. Any word from Exxon/Mobil et.al. about their discount programs?

[Crookshanks]

Tell ya what - if all those poor people think Chavez is so kind and compassionate, then let them move to Venezuela so he can take care of them! Damn, those people are probably the ones who are on welfare already - how much more do they want?!

[Yonivore]

That's about the only thing newsworthy about Chavez. Any word from Exxon/Mobil et.al. about their discount programs?
Any news from the Venezuelan people about how they feel about Chavez giving their shit away?

Per capita income for the average Venezuelan: $6,000.00

[leemajors]

But are you sure what you found out was real? Remember that there was a previous U.S. financed coup attempt against Chavez and all the ringleaders fled to the U.S. or are still living in Venezuela. Can you imagine if that happened in the US? How restricted would descent speech be here?

i just don't think the situation was as clear cut as the documentary made it out to be - it was filmed on quite a slant, not to say there weren't elements of pure truth in it. it was very well made, and i thought it was very informative - don't take what i said to mean i am totally anti-chavez, but i don't think he is a saint either. at this point he seems like a pure politician. i had a different opinion of the movie after i had a few days to think about than when i walked out. i was much more outraged when i watched bus 174 a month or two later.

[ChumpDumper]

You act as if they would see any oil profits if he charged full price. Nice attempt to dodge the question though, Yoni.

And an even better follow through on your pledge to ignore me.

[xrayzebra]

Chavez and the Prez of Iran remind me of Mussolini
and Hitler patting each other on the back and laughing
it up and praising each other. And a few years later....
Mussolini hanging upside down and Hitler one big cinder.


But got to hand it to the folks in Harlem, they loved
the show and especially Glover. Big hugs and applause
all around.

I'll just be SA210 was beside himself listening to all
that hate talk. And I know boutons was in seventh
heaven.

[SA210]

Chavez and the Prez of Iran remind me of Mussolini
and Hitler patting each other on the back and laughing
it up and praising each other. And a few years later....
Mussolini hanging upside down and Hitler one big cinder.


But got to hand it to the folks in Harlem, they loved
the show and especially Glover. Big hugs and applause
all around.

I'll just be SA210 was beside himself listening to all
that hate talk. And I know boutons was in seventh
heaven.
How ya been xray? :lol

[Yonivore]

Damn, I didn't look at who posted it. Sorry, I'll do better. I wish they'd just let us put mods on ignore.

[clambake]

Harkan was right, and I thought he was kind by the way he worded the discourse that surrounds this president.

Don't everybody go and get too weepy about the devil comment. Bush calls them Hitler and they haven't wet their diapers.

[Ocotillo]

Does anyone else smell sulphur?

[leemajors]

Does anyone else smell sulphur?

yes, but i just passed through luling.

[Ocotillo]

^^ :lol

[George W Bush]

Does anyone else smell sulphur?

I get that alot.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Somehow I knew that RandomGuy, croutons, and NBADunce would be having a circle jerk over Chavez's speech...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

A ruth-less, terra-supporting dictator with a heart?

No, it's called trying to spread socialism here in the US.


Honest question for Dan, croutons, 101A, and RandomGuy:

How would you react to President Bush being assassinated?

[Zunni]

LMAO @ the Neocons getting their panties in a wad when their God, Dubyah, gets called a name, after disparraging/slandering multiple heads of state himself. Get over it.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

He's right about one or two things tho.

1. this is the way most of the world views the US government (notice that Chavez seperates the govt. and the people in his speech).

2. the US is the new Imperial power in the world and people are getting very sick of being bullied and manipulated by the US, Europe, and multinational corporations (mostly from the US and Europe).

3. the UN's authority has been entirely eroded, and if the world is to move forward on issues like poverty, genocide and climate change, we need an international body acting with moral authority.

No doubt Chavez is a less than ideal figurehead, but he has seemingly become one of the iconic leaders of the third world. And the polarisation (are you with us or against us?) will continue to the detriment of all...

[smeagol]

1. this is the way most of the world views the US government (notice that Chavez seperates the govt. and the people in his speech).

The sad thing is that many Americans, including lots of ST.com posters, could care less what the rest of the world thinks of America.


2. the US is the new Imperial power in the world and people are getting very sick of being bullied and manipulated by the US, Europe, and multinational corporations (mostly from the US and Europe).

That's what money and power does to countries (and to people, for that matter).


3. the UN's authority has been entirely eroded, and if the world is to move forward on issues like poverty, genocide and climate change, we need an international body acting with moral authority.

I agree, but we need a world body to try to control the caos the World is in.


He's right about one or two things tho.

You said three :lol


No doubt Chavez is a less than ideal figurehead, but he has seemingly become one of the iconic leaders of the third world. And the polarisation (are you with us or against us?) will continue to the detriment of all...

How sad state of current affairs we live in when diplomats applaud a Chavez speach?

[ClintSquint]

Listening to Chavez's rant gave me a chill...prophetic justice is the next logical step.

[Yonivore]

LMAO @ the Neocons getting their panties in a wad when their God, Dubyah, gets called a name, after disparraging/slandering multiple heads of state himself. Get over it.
Yeah, well, the Pelosi/Rangel statements have sent the moonbats over at DailyKos into a tailspin.

At the “progressive” left’s premier loony bin web site, they’re incredibly wound up about the anti-Chavez statements from Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel; the cognitive dissonance is reaching a crescendo.

I just tried to write Nancy Pelosi after I saw... (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/20339/4884)
Chavez A “Thug,” Says Nancy Pelosi. Is Pelosi a troll? (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/195547/340)
Rangel and Pelosi Out Of Line. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/21/191936/444)
Pelosi defends Bush against Chavez. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/19167/5744)

Head on over, hours of fun for the whole family!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

LMAO @ the Neocons getting their panties in a wad when their God, Dubyah, gets called a name, after disparraging/slandering multiple heads of state himself. Get over it.

Um, I would take offense to it no matter the political party of the president.

So are you laughing your ass off at Rangel, Pelosi, and the other Democrats who are expressing their outrage at his comments? Or are they 'neocons' now too?

[velik_m]

No, it's called trying to spread socialism here in the US.

This is how america should try to spread democracy, not with guns. US is the richest country in the world, it's time you started using that fact to your advantage. Or not and communism makes a comeback...

[Yonivore]

This is how america should try to spread democracy, not with guns. US is the richest country in the world, it's time you started using that fact to your advantage. Or not and communism makes a comeback...
Have you seen the price tag on our foreign aid package every year? Both in real dollars and in percent of GNP we outspend every freakin' nation on the globe -- some of them (like Venezuela I would imagine) exponentially -- when it comes to spreading the wealth. That doesn't even account for the billions we've given as private citizens to organizations such as UNICEF and other global care groups.

I'm just guessing and would be interested in the facts but, I would imagine we send more in federal dollars, in the form of some type of foreign aid, to Venezuela than those Harlemites receive back in heating oil discounts.

Chavez comes here, makes an ass of himself, and gives away some token heating oil and all of a sudden that's how democracy is spread?

That's pretty idiotic.

[RandomGuy]

Here's one Democrat that has the balls to be a real idiot.

Harkin defends Venezuelan President's U-N speech against Bush (http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=020BFC5A-FA7D-42CC-9BA6A4ED9DA063B8)

Am I the only one who actually READ this BS?

This is the most illustrative example of how little regard a lot of conservatives have for the truth when smearing opponents.

Let's use some SMALL bit of common sense, and a little bit of logic here:

The headline reads "Harkin defends Venezuelan President's U-N speech..."

So reading this, you might expect Harkin to say something along the lines of "Chavez was right, and America is on the fascist-fast track to global domination".

What did he ACTUALLY say?


"I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies."

So, in a rush to smear a democrat, this conservative commentator would equate understanding of some Bush critics with agreement with his harshest critic.

Does that mean that if a psychologist understands a child molester's mental illness, that psychologist agrees that children should be molested?

They have the same logical format.

"I understand X, therefore I agree with X."


Description of Straw Man [logical fallacy]
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


Yet another example of how little truck with truth and logic conservative ideologues have. I find it genuinely a bit sociopathic and sickening. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me leery of many conservative ideas.

[RandomGuy]

Have you seen the price tag on our foreign aid package every year? Both in real dollars and in percent of GNP we outspend every freakin' nation on the globe -- some of them (like Venezuela I would imagine) exponentially -- when it comes to spreading the wealth. That doesn't even account for the billions we've given as private citizens to organizations such as UNICEF and other global care groups.

I'm just guessing and would be interested in the facts but, I would imagine we send more in federal dollars, in the form of some type of foreign aid, to Venezuela than those Harlemites receive back in heating oil discounts.

Chavez comes here, makes an ass of himself, and gives away some token heating oil and all of a sudden that's how democracy is spread?

That's pretty idiotic.


The U.S. is far and away the world’s largest donor of economic aid but dead last among 22 developed nations when measured as a percentage of GDP. At 0.13% of GDP, our country looks like a miser when compared with such countries as Denmark and Norway, or even with such other low GDP donors such Greece and Italy.
http://www.irc-online.org/content/commentary/2005/0502stingy.php


You are correct, however, that in real dollars, the US spends more than any other country.

Funny thing is that the largest portion (10%) goes to Israel, instead of actually helping the developing world.

The single richest nation on the planet, acts in it's own long-term detriment by placing a low value on helping others.

[nkdlunch]

Have you seen the price tag on our foreign aid package every year? Both in real dollars and in percent of GNP we outspend every freakin' nation on the globe -- some of them (like Venezuela I would imagine) exponentially -- when it comes to spreading the wealth. That doesn't even account for the billions we've given as private citizens to organizations such as UNICEF and other global care groups.

I'm just guessing and would be interested in the facts but, I would imagine we send more in federal dollars, in the form of some type of foreign aid, to Venezuela than those Harlemites receive back in heating oil discounts.

Chavez comes here, makes an ass of himself, and gives away some token heating oil and all of a sudden that's how democracy is spread?

That's pretty idiotic.

don't u know all the $$ in the world can't buy you friends. A good start for US would be to have a leader than can actually speak well and the rest of the world can relate to when he speaks of democracy.

Chavez > Bush when it comes to the world relating, understanding and agreeing to what he's talking about.

tell me, what part of Bush's speech, when he speaks to the world, is he trying to get countries to like democracy? the part where he says, either you're with us or against us?

[Crookshanks]

Some of you here are such idiots if you believe Chavez is right and that he is better than Bush at diplomacy. This is the same guy who allows NO dissent whatsoever in his own country. He's passed laws outlawing any negative protests against him or his government and just recently he tracked down the employers of people who had signed a petition against him and pressured those employers to fire the people!

I heard a man yesterday on talk radio who was from Venezuela and he told how it really is. Hugo Chavez is considered a clown and a joke in his own country and the people no longer believe in his "social programs." Chavez is scared to death of losing power and is in the process of setting the stage to ensure he wins re-election by any means necessary.

The fact that the delegates would applaud this man shows how ethically, politically, and morally bankrupt most of the rest of the world is!

They hate America, and nothing we could say or do would change that fact. They hate us because we are the richest and most free country in the world and they really want to be us, but can't. Why do you think so many people are coming to this country, both legally and illegally? It's because they know they can have a higher quality of life and, if they work hard and obey the law, they can become financially successful. Heck, even the ones who are feeding at the welfare trough have a higher quality of life than they would in their home country!

America is the great evil, imperialist nation, yet who do they come to whenever there is a national disaster or the outbreak of war? Yep, that's right - then they're all too happy to accept the help of the evil empire! Where would France be without the US - probably speaking German! Where would Kuwait be without the US - part of Saddam's empire! We also helped overthrow Slobadan Milosivic and we hastened the demise of the Soviet Union. Many millions of people all around the world are better off because of the aid of the US - yet they villify us at every chance.

If we were to become an isolationist nation, they would still criticize us for not doing enough to help the rest of the world. We can't win - no matter what we do! They are really just jealous of America and the great wealth enjoyed by its citizens, so they tear us down so that they can feel bigger and better.

I say America should stand tall, throw back her shoulders, and continue doing what she is doing - leading the world!

[Ocotillo]

There are many in the world who despise the U.S. and what you say is true, we are the greatest nation on the earth.

When I see delegates applauding Chavez and his comedy act, I see then doing so out of frustration with Bush and what he stands for. Some will hate us not matter what.

Even if we are the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, we do need allies and friends amongst the world's nations. It is in our national interest and security to work with the other nations of the world and treat them with respect rather than making demands and speaking with contempt for domestic political theater.

When we engage in pre-emptive wars and unleash messes as we have in Iraq it endears us to no one. We need to work with the leaders of the middle east now more than ever. There is an extremist element out there that wishes us harm and the more cooperation and intelligence we can get from others helps us isolate and destroy that enemy.

Bush foreign policy: wreckless
Bush Iraq campaign: incompetence

But hey, we haven't been hit on our soil in 5 years cause we're fightin' them over there instead of over here. Tell that to our allies the Brits. And what will the wingnuts say when some scumbag jihadists gets lucky and does successfully do something on our soil again?

[clambake]

The talking point of 5 years without an attack is based on a period of time.

The last time I checked, the bar has been set at 8 years since a terrorist attack.

WTC 1993-WTC 2001

[RandomGuy]

Somehow I knew that RandomGuy, croutons, and NBADunce would be having a circle jerk over Chavez's speech...

Just for the record, so all are 100% clear:

I think Chavez is slightly insane, and at the very least a bit sociopathic.

I thought the speech was over the top, and undiplomatic.

I am no big fan of Bush, and I am embarrassed at some of the things that are done in my name as an American, but that does NOT mean I think what a nutjob like Chavez says has any validity.

That said,

I would simply point to the fact that Bush's actions in the foreign policy arena tend to give asshats like Chavez ammunition. Any president would likely do so as the anti-US crowd would hate us regardless, but Bush seems to be especially ham-handed when it comes to diplomacy. :depressed

[Extra Stout]

History shows that nations will gang together to tie down great powers, lest they drowned out by the behemoth.

For decades, the United States had been the exception to that rule. Part of that was because of the Cold War. Part of it was because the U.S. went out of its way to show the rest of the world it had nothing to fear.

All past administrations, Republican and Democrat, have been deferential, almost to the point of excess, to the weaker powers. This administration was the first to eschew all that and say right up front that American power should be used just to serve American interests.

Much of the world, including even Old Europe, for all their smugness and bitching and moaning, ultimately looked to the United States to be the vanguard of Western ideals, to be a moral leader not because it was easy or efficacious, but because the American people believed they were exceptional, and strove to set a higher standard.

The U.S. is so powerful that the decisions it makes affect the lives of the majority of the world's populations. When the U.S. starts making clear it that it alone is going to decide the fate of all those people, it seems natural that people are going to start to band together and resist. They were willing to live under American exceptionalism, but they will resist American triumphalism.

Even as powerful as the U.S. is, if all the peoples of the world band together to curtail American power, they will succeed. Our past leaders had the insight to understand how special it was to be a global superpower, and yet have so much of the world be content with it, and not offer up that much resistance. This Administration has been the first since WW2 to take American power for granted.

(This is one reason why issues like redefining torture can cripple us. Let's say hypothetically torture has some benefit in extracting information out of Islamic terrorists. The tradeoff is that the rest of the world sees that Americans are no longer going to concern themselves with being exceptional, that they are going to act like any other nation does, and thus no longer can be trusted with the power they wield. So the world will start working together to constrain that power.)

This is why the United States currently is weaker than it has been at any time since WW2 ended, at a time in history when that power really could come in handy. We still have our economic might, and a significant fraction of the military might we enjoyed six years ago. But our ability to lead and to persuade the rest of the world has been eviscerated.

There has always been resentment and envy around the world for the position America finds itself in. Decades ago, European leaders would come to the U.S. and talk nice to the Presidents and do all the friendly photo-ops, then go back to Europe and tell their own media what a dope the U.S. President is.

But while there always has been resentment, there has not been a will to gang up on the U.S. But now the genie is out of the bottle. Bush himself has been much more interested in the agendas of allies and potential allies in his second term, and it has borne some fruit. But the damage of his first term has been done, and the nations of the world understand that even when Bush leaves office, there is still a good chance somebody similarly indifferent to the rest of the world, and willing to press American power for America's benefit, everybody else be damned, can get into power here.

The response to Chavez and Ahmadinejad in that light was not so much endorsement of their ideas, so many of which are insane, as it was an outlet for the resentment and disillusionment a lot of nations feel over the events I describe.

[Yonivore]

The talking point of 5 years without an attack is based on a period of time.

The last time I checked, the bar has been set at 8 years since a terrorist attack.

WTC 1993-WTC 2001
You forget 1995 and John Doe #2. (hey, we all have our conspiracy theories)

[leemajors]

RandomGuy, a straw man fallacy/argument is by no means restricted to the republicans - it's a tool used by pretty much every politician who ever breathed. alluding that it is a conservative strategy alone is ludicrous.

[leemajors]

History shows that nations will gang together to tie down great powers, lest they drowned out by the behemoth.

For decades, the United States had been the exception to that rule. Part of that was because of the Cold War. Part of it was because the U.S. went out of its way to show the rest of the world it had nothing to fear.

All past administrations, Republican and Democrat, have been deferential, almost to the point of excess, to the weaker powers. This administration was the first to eschew all that and say right up front that American power should be used just to serve American interests.

Much of the world, including even Old Europe, for all their smugness and bitching and moaning, ultimately looked to the United States to be the vanguard of Western ideals, to be a moral leader not because it was easy or efficacious, but because the American people believed they were exceptional, and strove to set a higher standard.

The U.S. is so powerful that the decisions it makes affect the lives of the majority of the world's populations. When the U.S. starts making clear it that it alone is going to decide the fate of all those people, it seems natural that people are going to start to band together and resist. They were willing to live under American exceptionalism, but they will resist American triumphalism.

Even as powerful as the U.S. is, if all the peoples of the world band together to curtail American power, they will succeed. Our past leaders had the insight to understand how special it was to be a global superpower, and yet have so much of the world be content with it, and not offer up that much resistance. This Administration has been the first since WW2 to take American power for granted.

(This is one reason why issues like redefining torture can cripple us. Let's say hypothetically torture has some benefit in extracting information out of Islamic terrorists. The tradeoff is that the rest of the world sees that Americans are no longer going to concern themselves with being exceptional, that they are going to act like any other nation does, and thus no longer can be trusted with the power they wield. So the world will start working together to constrain that power.)

This is why the United States currently is weaker than it has been at any time since WW2 ended, at a time in history when that power really could come in handy. We still have our economic might, and a significant fraction of the military might we enjoyed six years ago. But our ability to lead and to persuade the rest of the world has been eviscerated.

There has always been resentment and envy around the world for the position America finds itself in. Decades ago, European leaders would come to the U.S. and talk nice to the Presidents and do all the friendly photo-ops, then go back to Europe and tell their own media what a dope the U.S. President is.

But while there always has been resentment, there has not been a will to gang up on the U.S. But now the genie is out of the bottle. Bush himself has been much more interested in the agendas of allies and potential allies in his second term, and it has borne some fruit. But the damage of his first term has been done, and the nations of the world understand that even when Bush leaves office, there is still a good chance somebody similarly indifferent to the rest of the world, and willing to press American power for America's benefit, everybody else be damned, can get into power here.

The response to Chavez and Ahmadinejad in that light was not so much endorsement of their ideas, so many of which are insane, as it was an outlet for the resentment and disillusionment a lot of nations feel over the events I describe.

kudos - nice post.

[clambake]

John Doe #2= conspiracy theory? I'll agree with that.

[leemajors]

Just for the record, so all are 100% clear:

I think Chavez is slightly insane, and at the very least a bit sociopathic.

I thought the speech was over the top, and undiplomatic.

I am no big fan of Bush, and I am embarrassed at some of the things that are done in my name as an American, but that does NOT mean I think what a nutjob like Chavez says has any validity.

That said,

I would simply point to the fact that Bush's actions in the foreign policy arena tend to give asshats like Chavez ammunition. Any president would likely do so as the anti-US crowd would hate us regardless, but Bush seems to be especially ham-handed when it comes to diplomacy. :depressed

agreed there.

[01Snake]

Bush foreign policy: wreckless




:lol

[Yonivore]

Good Post ES.

Nations do things because it is in their interest to do them. Nations can't be "friends" with other nations and how the people of other nations view each other is due largely to the views that are put forth by those they respect.

People hate the U.S. and people love the U.S. but don't think that the U.S. or, even those countries called home by these U.S.-haters and U.S.-lovers care one whit about their nations popularity in the world

The only thing a nation should care about is whether or not its interests are being served, protected, and maintained. To the extent these interests intersect with those of other countries, we form alliances and treaties and partnerships. To the extent these interests differ with other countries' interests we disagree, we use diplomacy to change their policy, or we go to war.

Geopolitics isn't a popularity contest.

[Yonivore]

Bush foreign policy: wreckless
As opposed to reckless. Maybe his insurance rates will go down.

[Ocotillo]

I won't edit my grammatical error. God knows I would probably have misspelled potato too when asked. :lol

[Ocotillo]

You forget 1995 and John Doe #2. (hey, we all have our conspiracy theories)

Well I guess we have been hit since 9/11 if you want to count the Anthrax scare that followed.

[Extra Stout]

Good Post ES.

Nations do things because it is in their interest to do them. Nations can't be "friends" with other nations and how the people of other nations view each other is due largely to the views that are put forth by those they respect.

People hate the U.S. and people love the U.S. but don't think that the U.S. or, even those countries called home by these U.S.-haters and U.S.-lovers care one whit about their nations popularity in the world

The only thing a nation should care about is whether or not its interests are being served, protected, and maintained. To the extent these interests intersect with those of other countries, we form alliances and treaties and partnerships. To the extent these interests differ with other countries' interests we disagree, we use diplomacy to change their policy, or we go to war.

Geopolitics isn't a popularity contest.
Would you not agree that by using its power to serve its own interests too narrowly, the United States works against those same interests by compromising the very power it holds to pursue them, since part of its power is derived from the consent of other nations to wield it?

[Nbadan]

History shows that nations will gang together to tie down great powers, lest they drowned out by the behemoth.

For decades, the United States had been the exception to that rule. Part of that was because of the Cold War. Part of it was because the U.S. went out of its way to show the rest of the world it had nothing to fear.

All past administrations, Republican and Democrat, have been deferential, almost to the point of excess, to the weaker powers. This administration was the first to eschew all that and say right up front that American power should be used just to serve American interests.

Much of the world, including even Old Europe, for all their smugness and bitching and moaning, ultimately looked to the United States to be the vanguard of Western ideals, to be a moral leader not because it was easy or efficacious, but because the American people believed they were exceptional, and strove to set a higher standard.

The U.S. is so powerful that the decisions it makes affect the lives of the majority of the world's populations. When the U.S. starts making clear it that it alone is going to decide the fate of all those people, it seems natural that people are going to start to band together and resist. They were willing to live under American exceptionalism, but they will resist American triumphalism.

Even as powerful as the U.S. is, if all the peoples of the world band together to curtail American power, they will succeed. Our past leaders had the insight to understand how special it was to be a global superpower, and yet have so much of the world be content with it, and not offer up that much resistance. This Administration has been the first since WW2 to take American power for granted.

(This is one reason why issues like redefining torture can cripple us. Let's say hypothetically torture has some benefit in extracting information out of Islamic terrorists. The tradeoff is that the rest of the world sees that Americans are no longer going to concern themselves with being exceptional, that they are going to act like any other nation does, and thus no longer can be trusted with the power they wield. So the world will start working together to constrain that power.)

This is why the United States currently is weaker than it has been at any time since WW2 ended, at a time in history when that power really could come in handy. We still have our economic might, and a significant fraction of the military might we enjoyed six years ago. But our ability to lead and to persuade the rest of the world has been eviscerated.

There has always been resentment and envy around the world for the position America finds itself in. Decades ago, European leaders would come to the U.S. and talk nice to the Presidents and do all the friendly photo-ops, then go back to Europe and tell their own media what a dope the U.S. President is.

But while there always has been resentment, there has not been a will to gang up on the U.S. But now the genie is out of the bottle. Bush himself has been much more interested in the agendas of allies and potential allies in his second term, and it has borne some fruit. But the damage of his first term has been done, and the nations of the world understand that even when Bush leaves office, there is still a good chance somebody similarly indifferent to the rest of the world, and willing to press American power for America's benefit, everybody else be damned, can get into power here.

The response to Chavez and Ahmadinejad in that light was not so much endorsement of their ideas, so many of which are insane, as it was an outlet for the resentment and disillusionment a lot of nations feel over the events I describe.


A++ historically accurate and stayed on topic.

:hat

[Ocotillo]

Good Post ES.

Nations do things because it is in their interest to do them. Nations can't be "friends" with other nations and how the people of other nations view each other is due largely to the views that are put forth by those they respect.

People hate the U.S. and people love the U.S. but don't think that the U.S. or, even those countries called home by these U.S.-haters and U.S.-lovers care one whit about their nations popularity in the world

The only thing a nation should care about is whether or not its interests are being served, protected, and maintained. To the extent these interests intersect with those of other countries, we form alliances and treaties and partnerships. To the extent these interests differ with other countries' interests we disagree, we use diplomacy to change their policy, or we go to war.

Geopolitics isn't a popularity contest.

I respect your opinion on this but disagree. (I do agree ES gave a good post). While it is not a popularity contest, it does help to devolp close alliances and relationships and I see that being in our national interest.

[Yonivore]

I respect your opinion on this but disagree. (I do agree ES gave a good post). While it is not a popularity contest, it does help to devolp close alliances and relationships and I see that being in our national interest.
Other nations are not going to forego alliances and relationships with the United States of America when it is in their best interests to do so -- no matter what their respective populations or leaders think of us or our President. Period. It just doesn't matter.

[clambake]

Other nations are taking steps away from us right now. Many of these nations understand that they must appease their own people. No matter how fondly you think about Europe, we need their support.

Chavez put Bush on the rhetorical canvas. He may be crazy, but right now it's like a fox. He goes into Harlem and gives the needy free oil. Bush sits back and allows US oil to rape us repeatedly to the point where we all suffer.

Masterful left hook by Chavez.

[01Snake]

Chavez put Bush on the rhetorical canvas. He may be crazy, but right now it's like a fox. He goes into Harlem and gives the needy free oil. Bush sits back and allows US oil to rape us repeatedly to the point where we all suffer.

Masterful left hook by Chavez.

So were simply not giving enough handouts to the poor huh??

[Yonivore]

Other nations are taking steps away from us right now. Many of these nations understand that they must appease their own people. No matter how fondly you think about Europe, we need their support.
But, they need ours more and in more crucial ways. And, so long as that is true, it doesn't matter what Livingston and Galloway think.


Chavez put Bush on the rhetorical canvas. He may be crazy, but right now it's like a fox. He goes into Harlem and gives the needy free oil. Bush sits back and allows US oil to rape us repeatedly to the point where we all suffer.
Okay, this is just stupid on so many levels. scott, care to take this one?


Masterful left hook by Chavez.
Yeah, masterful.

By the way, anyone remember this?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/unclesaddam.jpg

Now, look at the expression on the little girl's face:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/chavez.jpg

If you think Chavez is crazy like a fox or "masterful" in the diplomatic/geopolitical arena, you're just another useful idiot...like those "human shields" Saddam Hussein exploited in 1990.

[xrayzebra]

This is how america should try to spread democracy, not with guns. US is the richest country in the world, it's time you started using that fact to your advantage. Or not and communism makes a comeback...

You obviously got to be kiddin! Would you, you
poor simple minded person, that you are, like to
just look at recent history. Not just in Bush's
administration but Clinton's. And all the way back
to Reagan's. How did our rich's do anything but
cause the death of many American Servicemen and civilians? The only thing these people
understand is pure power. The want YOU and ME
dead, what part of that do you not understand?

[xrayzebra]

A++ historically accurate and stayed on topic.

:hat

Oh, thank you teach, golly gee. It is so nice you
are here to keep everyone on topic. Even if you
don't know what you are talking about most of the
time.

[xrayzebra]

Other nations are taking steps away from us right now. Many of these nations understand that they must appease their own people. No matter how fondly you think about Europe, we need their support.

Chavez put Bush on the rhetorical canvas. He may be crazy, but right now it's like a fox. He goes into Harlem and gives the needy free oil. Bush sits back and allows US oil to rape us repeatedly to the point where we all suffer.

Masterful left hook by Chavez.

Well Mister smart guy. Just how much of the
worlds oil does our B I G oil control? Come on
don't cop out with your crap. Tell us. You
sound like a feminist who claims a husband
who has sex with his wife is raping her.

[clambake]

Maybe it's just your delivery. Anyway, it sounds senseless.

Yoni, how much more should we suffer before big oil findly gets full?

[01Snake]

Maybe it's just your delivery. Anyway, it sounds senseless.

Yoni, how much more should we suffer before big oil findly gets full?

Suffering? Gas is cheap as shit right now. :lol

Coffee on the other hand...

[clambake]

I could understand if big oil were barely sqeezing out a profit.

And xray....I think you could use one.

[Yonivore]

I could understand if big oil were barely sqeezing out a profit.

And xray....I think you could use one.
Maybe you could understand if you'd look at "big oil's" profit history over the course of a few decades instead of just in the moment.

But, seriously, I doubt you'll ever understand.

[xrayzebra]

I could understand if big oil were barely sqeezing out a profit.

And xray....I think you could use one.

I could use what? You still haven't answered the
question. How much oil does the American
Companies control? That they can control prices
worldwide. You are typical of people like you. Just
throw out a statement with no facts.

[clambake]

Sorry xray, I meant oil profits off of americans.

[smeagol]

People who think some countries and it's inhabitants hate the US because it is rich and powerful (and only because it's rich an powerful) are naiive, to say the least.

[smeagol]

They hate America, and nothing we could say or do would change that fact. They hate us because we are the richest and most free country in the world and they really want to be us, but can't.

Exhibit #1

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I would simply point to the fact that Bush's actions in the foreign policy arena tend to give asshats like Chavez ammunition. Any president would likely do so as the anti-US crowd would hate us regardless, but Bush seems to be especially ham-handed when it comes to diplomacy.

RandomGuy, JFK (Demo) did the same thing with Cuba back in the day. What's your point? I think that all turned out okay.

Admit it, you hate W., and get on with your life.

And before 9/11 I would agree totally with Extra Stout's post, from beginning to end. After 9/11, I'm not so sure we can play it the same way anymore.

We are in the transition from a period of time where mutually assured destruction was something that kept both sides from pulling the trigger.

Now we're dealing with a foe in radical Islam that welcomes death and does everything it can to bring about a response to hasten it. The rules have changed. I'm not 100% convinced that the way we're doing this is the right way, but time will tell.

If I had my way we would have wiped out the AFghan/Pakistan border 9/12 with a nuke and that would have been the end of that.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

A++ historically accurate and stayed on topic.

I just looked up irony in the dictionary, and this post from Dan is there as the definition. :lol

[velik_m]

You obviously got to be kiddin! Would you, you
poor simple minded person, that you are, like to
just look at recent history. Not just in Bush's
administration but Clinton's. And all the way back
to Reagan's. How did our rich's do anything but
cause the death of many American Servicemen and civilians? The only thing these people
understand is pure power. The want YOU and ME
dead, what part of that do you not understand?

I think "these people" would be hard pressed to find Slovenia on the map, let alone ME.

When i say use the riches, i don't mean put dictators in power and buy them weapons.

You can control through power/fear or through friendship/respect. The first one is easier, but be wary when that power is gone, you might find out you have no real friends left.

[xrayzebra]

I think "these people" would be hard pressed to find Slovenia on the map, let alone ME.

When i say use the riches, i don't mean put dictators in power and buy them weapons.

You can control through power/fear or through friendship/respect. The first one is easier, but be wary when that power is gone, you might find out you have no real friends left.

You speak of foreign aid, I think. You should look up how much the US of A
has given in money, goods and blood to help nations of the world and what
has it gotten us from those that want to kill us. Nada, zip, zilch or nothing.
What ever term you would like to apply.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would we expect anything from those who would want to kill us?

[RandomGuy]

But hey, we haven't been hit on our soil in 5 years cause we're fightin' them over there instead of over here. Tell that to our allies the Brits. And what will the wingnuts say when some scumbag jihadists gets lucky and does successfully do something on our soil again?

Don't forget Spain.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy, a straw man fallacy/argument is by no means restricted to the republicans - it's a tool used by pretty much every politician who ever breathed. alluding that it is a conservative strategy alone is ludicrous.

You are correct. But I see fallacious logic being used MUCH more on the conservative side, so much so that I think new small number of conservative die-hards have got to be at least a little detached from logic/reason.

Are there equivalents on the liberal side? Hell yeah. You see it in every good political forum.

But the greatest number of rational, logical, moral people I have ever seen tend to be progressives.

[Extra Stout]

And before 9/11 I would agree totally with Extra Stout's post, from beginning to end. After 9/11, I'm not so sure we can play it the same way anymore.

We are in the transition from a period of time where mutually assured destruction was something that kept both sides from pulling the trigger.

Now we're dealing with a foe in radical Islam that welcomes death and does everything it can to bring about a response to hasten it. The rules have changed. I'm not 100% convinced that the way we're doing this is the right way, but time will tell.
In his second term, Bush has acceeded to the fact that Islamic terrorism is a threat to everybody, everybody has a hand in doing something about it, and the war on terror can't be executed in a way that benefits only the United States if the U.S. wants allies to participate.

In his first term, Bush wanted to dictate to the rest of the world how the war was to be fought.

I could speculate that the difference has something to do with having somebody whose judgment he trusts serving as Secretary of State now. You notice that the hardcore neocons cannot stand the way Condi is doing her job. The neocons do not have the President's ear on foreign policy the way they did in his first term.

Other countries face a more immediate threat than does the United States from Islamic terrorism. However, American hegemony also poses a threat to their interests. We cannot take for granted that they are going to see things the way we do.