Those who have announced their support for an inhuman and clearly criminal administration have debased themselves so completely that further comment from this cold and humble blogger seems superfluous.
And some of their comments have been so absurd that it almost seems cruel to quote them, much less point out the error of their ways. But I can't resist. So here, for the record, are some of the worst:
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote a column called "Why The Firebrands Get Heard" which started this way:
My but the lesser nations are getting uppity.The rest of his column was as unworthy of a read as the intro, so I'll spare you most of the details. The gist of Robinson's argument seems to be that Chavez overstepped the bounds of diplomatic propriety.
Clearly, this was no way to speak about the president of the United States.Some bounds! In the land of the free and the home of the brave, one had best not summon up any bravery or use any freedom. According to Eugene Robinson, that is!
Unabashed Uber-Zionist idiot Sher Zieve, writing in the Post Chronicle, was so worked up that he sometimes forgot to insert spaces between his words (and his so-called "editors" did not catch the errors), but he nonetheless managed to produce a thoroughly nonsensical column, of which this is a representative sample:
Strongman Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez delivered the second anti-US and anti-Bush punch on Wednesday. Chavez, who continues his seizures of Western businesses operating in Venezuela, ranted for approximately a half-hour about the USAand President Bush. He also held up and quoted from anti-US and anti-Israel communist author Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States." Notation for accuracy: The UShas never taken over a country for any "imperialistic" strategies or measures. In fact, it has never taken over a country except to return said country to the people of that country--as in the case of World War II's Japan and Germany.Questions for accuracy:
Why is the USA building huge military bases in Iraq? To give them to the Iraqis?
The USA now has troops stationed in how many countries?
How many countries has Venezuela attacked?
How many innocent civilians have been killed by troops following the orders of Hugo Chavez?
How is it that Chavez is a "strongman"?
And George Bush, who cannot spend a day without torture, is what? A civilized leader?
I told you this was going to be too easy.
From CNN, surely the White House's second favorite mainstream media outlet, came a gem of a "news item" entitled "Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush", which included the following nonsense from people who should know better:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said.What makes Chavez, a peaceful leader of a peaceful country, a thug?
And if Chavez is an everyday thug, then what kind of a thug is George Bush?
Pelosi, who is sometimes called "shrill" for her criticism of the president, showed her true color here. Yellow.
But -- for my money -- the most preposterous comment of all came from Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, who said:
If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not...How ridiculous can you get? Bush can go on attacking defenseless countries at will, but foreign citizens are not even allowed to comment? In a land of supposedly free speech? How can this be?
Charles Rangel has shown himself to be a testament to pure ignorance, or to the power of American propaganda. Take your pick. They're all the same to me.
One of the few honest appraisals of Chavez' speech that I have seen came from Tommi Avicolli Mecca, writing in San Francisco's Beyond Chron. His colunmn was called "Hugo Chavez is not anti-American", and began this way:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is once again being dismissed as “anti-American” by the mainstream media in this country for daring to say what many of us know is true: that our government’s policies throughout the world are more about control of resources than fighting terrorism.In my humble and nearly frozen opinion, Mecca's piece is worth reading in its entirety. And if you are the type who enjoys the words of an "everyday thug", so are the words of Hugo Chavez.
Chavez is not “anti-American.” He is anti-George Bush. He is anti-U.S. government policies. So are millions of others (myself included), who have been marching and speaking out against those same policies since Bush first took office in 2000.
The latest charges of being “anti-American” come after Chavez addressed the United Nation’s 61st General Assembly on September 20. Commenting on Bush’s appearance at the UN the day before, Chavez said: “The devil came here yesterday. He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world.” The Socialist leader accused the U.S. government of “domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world.” He said that our government was already supporting coupe attempts to overthrow him, which comes as news to no one who knows anything about the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America.
In his 23-minute speech, which received thunderous applause from the almost 200 delegates present, Chavez made it clear that he was talking about the U.S. government and not the American people. In fact, Chavez credited the American people with wanting peace in the world: “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.”