Devil Bush?

[3113]

Long past time for another poll. And for this one we can thank Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Hugo really, really, really doesn't like Bush. In fact, he thinks Bush is the devil:

Venezuela's Chavez: Bush is the 'devil'
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 20 (UPI) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says U.S. President George W. Bush is the "devil" and the "hegemonistic" United States, an imperialist empire.

Taking the podium at the annual general debate of the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday, Chavez waved a copy of Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival, The imperialist strategy of the United States," recommending it as an "excellent" book.

He said, "The hegemonistic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species."

The threat "is like a sword hanging over our head," Chavez said.

"The first people who should read this book are our own brothers and sisters in the United States because the threat is in their own house," the president said. "Yesterday (Tuesday) the devil came here."

Chavez pointed to the podium and added, "It smells of sulfur, still today," and made the sign of the cross.

"The devil came here as if he owned the world, truly as owner of the world. I think you should call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement," Chavez said. "As the spokesman of imperialism he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of exploitation, domination and pillage of peoples of the world."

Asked for reaction, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, said, "It's insulting."

He added, "We are not going to address that comic strip approach to international affairs ... the real issue is he (Chavez) knows he can exercise freedom of speech on that podium and ... could exercise it in Central Park too. How about giving the same freedom to the people of Venezuela?"

What do you think? Does Hugo have a point, or is he just being an insulting comic strip character? Cast your vote in the poll!

 

[rgraham666]

Long past time for another poll. And for this one we can thank Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Hugo really, really, really doesn't like Bush. In fact, he thinks Bush is the devil:


What do you think? Does Hugo have a point, or is he just being an insulting comic strip character? Cast your vote in the poll!

Bush can't be the Devil.

The Devil is subtle and smart.

 

[Guest]

Bush can't be the Devil.

The Devil is subtle and smart.

And looks good in heels. Er, hooves.

 

[cantdog]

I have seen a lot of dumb ass bullies. That smell is not sulfur.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Satan is not pleased at the insult given to him by that foolish thug Chavez. Poor Hugo, he makes enemies. First Pat Robertson (another pompous ass), then Bush, and now the Prince of Darkness. Will he ever learn?

Then again, Bush and Chavez have a lot in common. Do you think it takes one to know one?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Bush is an average man trying to do an impossible job in a very difficult world, earnest but without any rational and consistent set of principles to guide him. The lefties will someday look back on their hyperventilating Manichean fever-swamp fantasies regarding this administration with deep embarrassment. If anyone should be be furious at Bush it's my people - limited government libertarians.

Chavez, on the other hand, is truly evil. He does have a consistent set of principles, which are the same depraved ones that guided Stalin and Mao - power from the barrel of a gun, the truncheons of the secret police, and the bullying of his brownshirt street thugs. Poor Venezuela . . .

Is that all just too un-PC for AH? Be glad you're not in Hugo's gulag.

 

[Guest]

You want a cookie?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yes, please. Coooo-kieeee.

 

[cantdog]

You believe too much of what they are telling you about their enemy, Roxanne. The stories of Chavez are insane, fantastic calumnies. Please try a little harder to obtain a truer picture of Venezuela. This sort of 'pure evil' malarkey is unworthy of you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You believe too much of what they are telling you about their enemy, Roxanne. The stories of Chavez are insane, fantastic calumnies. Please try a little harder to obtain a truer picture of Venezuela. This sort of 'pure evil' malarkey is unworthy of you.

I don't know, Cant. I agree I was a bit on the fever-swamp side myself in my rhetoric above, but facts are stubborn things, and there is no doubt that this guy wants to replace a constitutional government and the rule of law, admittedly deeply flawed and incomplete versions, with a proper police state with no rule of law at all. If we've learned anything in recent decades its that the rule of law is really the most important thing for creating a flourishing nation where its possible to live a decent life. Therefore, a dictator whose every design is to destroy the rule of law really is a very, very bad guy.

You've heard that phrase "the banality of evil." The really bad people in this world aren't usually larger-than-life Snidely Whiplash types, twisting their mustaches and cackling, "Nyah-ha-ha!" They are more likely to look like puling little milquetoasts, while they quietly give orders to have dissidents "taken care of," or peaceful protestors "roughed up" and worse by the Brownshirts. That really is happening in Venezuela right now, and it truly is a tragedy. Genuine freedom lovers of all political stripes should speak out loudly and uncompromisingly. This is not a time to adopt a "the enemy of my enemy (Bush) is my friend" position. That is a cynical, unprincipled thing to do when real tyranny is afoot, and is detroying the lives and life chances of real people in large numbers.

 

[tanyachrs]

I think that in order to be really evil you have to believe with great certainty that you're doing good.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't know, Cant. I agree I was a bit on the fever-swamp side myself in my rhetoric above, but facts are stubborn things, and there is no doubt that this guy wants to replace a constitutional government and the rule of law, admittedly deeply flawed and incomplete versions, with a proper police state with no rule of law at all. If we've learned anything in recent decades its that the rule of law is really the most important thing for creating a flourishing nation where its possible to live a decent life. Therefore, a dictator whose every design is to destroy the rule of law really is a very, very bad guy.

You've heard that phrase "the banality of evil." The really bad people in this world aren't usually larger-than-life Snidely Whiplash types, twisting their mustaches and cackling, "Nyah-ha-ha!" They are more likely to look like puling little milquetoasts, while they quietly give orders to have dissidents "taken care of," or peaceful protestors "roughed up" and worse by the Brownshirts. That really is happening in Venezuela right now, and it truly is a tragedy. Genuine freedom lovers of all political stripes should speak out loudly and uncompromisingly. This is not a time to adopt a "the enemy of my enemy (Bush) is my friend" position. That is a cynical, unprincipled thing to do when real tyranny is afoot, and is detroying the lives and life chances of real people in large numbers.

Score a point for Roxy.

 

[Guest]

Not necessarily.

For a moment there I thought she was talking about Bush.

 

[rgraham666]

I find the differences between the two to be merely aesthetic.

 

[cloudy]

Believe it or not, Chavez has done some good, however minor y'all may see it (and, admittedly, I don't see it as a minor thing). He's the first leader to start giving back land stolen from the indigenous population.

Maybe other leaders *ahem* could learn something.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I did a google of the Bush/Satan question. There are hundreds of websites connecting Bush to Satan. Admittedly most of the sites are strictly Anti-Bush hate sites, but a few actually have some good Bible Based information.

Personally, I don't know. You make up your own mind.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l27/Jenny_Jackson/ScreenShot127.jpg

 

[cantdog]

I don't know, Cant. I agree I was a bit on the fever-swamp side myself in my rhetoric above, but facts are stubborn things, and there is no doubt that this guy wants to replace a constitutional government and the rule of law, admittedly deeply flawed and incomplete versions, with a proper police state with no rule of law at all. If we've learned anything in recent decades its that the rule of law is really the most important thing for creating a flourishing nation where its possible to live a decent life. Therefore, a dictator whose every design is to destroy the rule of law really is a very, very bad guy.

You've heard that phrase "the banality of evil." The really bad people in this world aren't usually larger-than-life Snidely Whiplash types, twisting their mustaches and cackling, "Nyah-ha-ha!" They are more likely to look like puling little milquetoasts, while they quietly give orders to have dissidents "taken care of," or peaceful protestors "roughed up" and worse by the Brownshirts. That really is happening in Venezuela right now, and it truly is a tragedy. Genuine freedom lovers of all political stripes should speak out loudly and uncompromisingly. This is not a time to adopt a "the enemy of my enemy (Bush) is my friend" position. That is a cynical, unprincipled thing to do when real tyranny is afoot, and is detroying the lives and life chances of real people in large numbers.

I am in the ACLU, you know, Roxanne. I see this administration's constant attempts, in this country, to dismantle the rule of law and render impotent the constitution. As a libertarian, you should have noted the same.

And as for the police state? Perhaps your average guy can feel that his ability to cast any one of us citizens in detention indefinitely with no hearing is a warm cloak of security over our shoulders? Perhaps the warrantless intrusion of the observers, windowpeepers on government payrooll, is just trying to do a difficult job?

Their demonizing reports about Chavez, like Lula and Aristide and any other whom they have decided won't play the game, are predictible in their thrust if less so in their details. But they are lies.

 

[cantdog]

I think that in order to be really evil you have to believe with great certainty that you're doing good.

Precisely what Rob has said before now. It takes an ideologue to undertake the extraordinarily callous measures these people use. Ideologues are driven by principle. Principles don't admit of particulars, like human beings made to bleed and sicken, starve and die in their hundreds of thousands in order that the principle may be furthered.

 

[Couture]

Bush is an average man trying to do an impossible job in a very difficult world, earnest but without any rational and consistent set of principles to guide him. The lefties will someday look back on their hyperventilating Manichean fever-swamp fantasies regarding this administration with deep embarrassment. If anyone should be be furious at Bush it's my people - limited government libertarians.

Chavez, on the other hand, is truly evil. He does have a consistent set of principles, which are the same depraved ones that guided Stalin and Mao - power from the barrel of a gun, the truncheons of the secret police, and the bullying of his brownshirt street thugs. Poor Venezuela . . .

Is that all just too un-PC for AH? Be glad you're not in Hugo's gulag.

Roxanne, I may be ignorant because I haven't really studied Hugo Chavez and the current state of Venezuela, but I didn't know he was such an evil fellow. I'm not a member of his fan club either - but I don't see how what he has done is so much worse than Bush-boy.

I also think his current hatred of all things Bush probably has something to do with the fact that it appears that American interests tried to organize a coup in his country back in 2002 that almost resulted in his ouster.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't know. I have to say that Bush has done evil things, but he hasn't tried to completely scrap the Constitution and create one giving him absolutely power. It's like the different between a cobra and a rattlesnake. Bush is the rattlesnake. It will take more of his venom to catch up with the lethal effect of Chavez's actions against personal freedom and representative government.

And Chavez is no one to complain of coups. He staged a failed one in 1992, some 10 years earlier than the one against him. In fact, the one against him had a lot of backing from the middle class until the new junta decided not to pursue elections right away.

 

[izabella]

Chavez, on the other hand, is truly evil. He does have a consistent set of principles, which are the same depraved ones that guided Stalin and Mao - power from the barrel of a gun, the truncheons of the secret police, and the bullying of his brownshirt street thugs. Poor Venezuela . . .

Is that all just too un-PC for AH? Be glad you're not in Hugo's gulag.

Bush, on the other hand, is ineptly evil. He does have a consistent set of principles, which are the same misguided ones that led us into a war with no end that has destabilized Iraq to the point no one knows how to mitigate the disaster - power from the barrel of a gun/F-16/nuke, the truncheon of the Patriot Act wielded by the FBI spying on its own citizens, and the bullying of his evangelist fundamentalists from their pulpits. Poor United States.

Be glad you haven't been detained in one of the CIA's secret prisons.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Believe it or not, Chavez has done some good . . .

I imagine that you could find some group willing something like this about every bloody-handed dictator in history. I'm not equating the two, mind you, and not questioning the past injustices perpetrated on indigenous Venezuelans, but I don't doubt that peasant farmers given land that previously belonged to Jews in Hitler's Germany expressed similar sentiments.

 

[Couture]

I imagine that you could find some group willing something like this about every bloody-handed dictator in history. I'm not equating the two, mind you, and not questioning the past injustices perpetrated on indigenous Venezuelans, but I don't doubt that peasant farmers given land that previously belonged to Jews in Hitler's Germany expressed similar sentiments.

I thought Chavez gave title to land that formerly belonged to the government to the people who were actually living on it.

 

[cantdog]

I don't know. I have to say that Bush has done evil things, but he hasn't tried to completely scrap the Constitution and create one giving him absolutely power.

Bush has indeed tried exactly that very thing. These True Believers don't much like the constitution and they oppose the bill of rights all they can. Thye want no limits on their actions. Not legal limits, not oversight from any congress or judges, and certainly not any critics in press or public.

Chavez didn't have to sweat the coup of 2002, because he beat them. The people wouldn't accept the new order, and he came back right away. He's too popular to be taken lightly.

 

[shereads]

Chavez just made himself look ignorant. Everybody knows Satan is Dick Cheney.



On a more serious note, I just watched Larry King's interview with Bill Clinton - always a shock to the system, being reminded that we had a smart president. A president who came from poverty and has spent much of his post-Washington life in dangerous places, championing unpopular causes, for the benefit of people who can't return the favor.

Asked about the Chavez "devil" comment, Bill said "that kind of politics - wherever it's used - can be effective in the short term. Appealing to people's darker emotions can win you a few close elections" or in Chavez' case, build credibility where there's already a lot of anti-American sentiment.

But in the long term, he said, it can only backfire. "It's empty; it leaves people hungry. They eventually realize you haven't made their lives better. You've made them more isolated."

Isolated indeed.

Asked if the world is a better place than it was 6 years ago:

"It is - for people like you and me. It's a more comfortable world, economically for you {celebrity talk-host Larry King] and me. But 90% of the world's people still subsist on $2 a day, so that kind of comfort is unstable and unsustainable. Even without weapons of mass destruction, even without terrorism."

And finally, asked to comment on Dick Cheney's statement this week that he would still have favored the invasion of Iraq even knowing all we know now:

"Of course he would."



Of course. He would.

----

Clinton, despite his personal failings, political compromises and the distraction posed by the 6-year, $40 million Whitewater witchhunt, gave us 8 years to forget how it felt to be trapped in a disastrous war and a massive budget deficit; 8 years of being able to pick up a newspaper without the sense of dread that became familiar during Vietnam; 8 years to consider how we might use our position as the world's only remaining superpower to do some good in the world. We had the luxury of making some moral choices instead of expedient ones. Clinton led an intervention to stop genocide in Bosnia, while his critics accused him of risking American lives to 'police the world.' He rebuilt America's credibility on the world stage, bringing our compassion to the fore, after years in which it was overshadowed by our sponsorship of tyrants like Saddam Hussein.

Unemployment was low; wages were high. Factories were safer. Air and water were cleaner; wilderness lands were protected. It didn't collapse the economy.

The gap between America's richest and poorest families grew narrower; yet the rich remained rich! The future seemed user-friendly.

I always have mixed feelings when I watch Clinton speak. He makes me nostalgic for things that seem so distant, I might have dreamed them: pride, optimism, and - this one makes me dizzy - feeling intellectually challenged by a president who, when asked to name his favorite books, could answer without a pause, "'Meditions' of Marcus Aurelius and 'The Imitation of Christ' by Thomas a Kempis'."

Oh. Right. Those are my favorites, too. <scurries to Google>

It's maddening to see how things were to how things are, embodied in two men. It's infuriating that the gains made by one have been completely wiped out by the other.

Mostly, it's a mystery to me that Clinton, who must despise the Trouble Monkey, manages to resist so many opportunities to take a cheap shot at his successor.

For example, when Clinton and GWB bumped into each other at the U.N. today on their way to separate meetings, Clinton might have said to Dubya, "Your dad says hello."



Maybe he did!