On Chavez's speech ...

Did Democrats write Chavez's speech?

[SIZE=-1]Posted: September 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

[/SIZE]


[FONT=Palatino,]By Larry Elder
[SIZE=-1]© 2006 [/SIZE]

Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, used his United Nations address to repeatedly refer to President Bush as a "devil." Immediately, and vigorously, two prominent Democrats defended Bush and lambasted Chavez for maligning "their" president.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called Chavez "an everyday thug." "You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and you don't condemn my president," said Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. Yes, the same Rangel who, after the Supreme Court ruled in Bush's favor in the 2000 presidential election, pronounced the decision an "injustice." With this newfound patriotic fervor, Democrats lashed into Hugo Chavez. Why, how dare he criticize President Bush in a demeaning, brutal fashion!
Here's the question. Where were the neo-defenders of Bush when Democrats repeatedly, and viciously, said virtually the same thing as did Chavez? Let's go to the videotape ...
(Column continues below)

Hugo Chavez: ""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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.: "I sometimes feel as though Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington."
Chavez: "... [T]he 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."
Former President Jimmy Carter: "Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world. These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained."
Chavez: "The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.: "Week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie. And now, despite the increasingly restless Iraqi population, the administration still refuses to face the truth, or to tell the truth."
Chavez: "The world parent's statement – cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: "Their plan is lie and die. And that's what they're doing. They lie to America about what's happening on the ground, they lie about why we're there, they lie about what's happening."
Chavez: "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."
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.: "Our troops [in Haditha] ... killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (Murtha said this before there was an investigation. He later apologized.)
Chavez: "How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: Bush is a "loser" and a "liar." (Reid later apologized for loser, not liar.)
Chavez: "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."
Pelosi: "We have a situation where we have two oilmen in the White House, and we have gasoline at over $3 a barrel. Surprise, surprise." She probably meant $3 a gallon. Or maybe she hasn't pumped her own gas lately. Or, how about: "And I'm here to say that when the oilmen, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, strode into town, the showdown began between Big Oil and the consumer. Big Oil won."
Chavez: "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."
Michael Moore, the guy the Democrats granted a seat next to former President Jimmy Carter during the Democratic National Convention, called President Bush a "deserter," said "there is no terrorist threat" and denounced the war in Iraq, arguing that America entered into it because of "the oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."
Memo to Chavez, ruler of a country increasingly impoverished due to his policies: Save some money. Fire your speechwriter and just transcribe to Spanish the sound bites from Howard Dean and company.
Sean Penn recently called the president "Beelzebub [Satan] – and a dumb one." How long before the actor, now appearing in the movie flop "All the King's Men," sues Chavez – for plagiarism?
[/FONT]

Hugo Chavez is a fruit cake...or he needs to cut back on the med's or meth.

Anyone willing to allow Iran to start building military bases in his Country (while the world is heading to war) and stand up at the UN (not to say that they are sane also) and ramble on about the devil and that BS needs to set the meth down and pick up a pipe of Bud.

peace

If you look at what Chavez said, outside of his Devil remark,(and I almost believe that) he was mirroring what the rest of the world thinks of the Bush policys. How vane are we to suppose that other countries like us medling in their affairs, having CIA spys watching them, threatining sanctions, stealing their resourses, etc. The Oil companies are running the world at the present time and they are based in the good old USA. Hugo might be a little brisk in his remarks, but they were for the most part the absolute truth. What gives credence to Hugo, is the fact that he has oil and does not need the USA to meddle in his affairs. We pay billions to Columbia so we can bomb and burn their forests and coca fields. Chavez says stay the hell out on Venezuala, I don't need your foriegn aid! This pisses the Bush regeme off! I only wish more countries would stand up to the policys of the oil companys and Bush. The problem is, the leaders of the countries get first dibs on the foriegn aid money, pretty hard to turn down a few billion when you know you can siphon off a good piece for youself. Look at the african dictators that used our foriegn aid to set themselves up with armies so they could never be deposed. This is an old story, and no, Bush isn't the first to apply this policy. It's been going on for years. Bush is just a lot more arrogant about it, "Your either with us or against us". What about were not with you and your fuck you policys, but we're not against you either. just leave us the hell alone. Thats what Chavez was saying!

medicinaluseonly said:

The Oil companies are running the world at the present time and they are based in the good old USA.

Click to expand...

I thought folks of your generation believe the "Jewish Bankers" run the world.

Vi

Maybe some do, I was always ahead of my time, If you want to stay young you gotta think young. The mind only ages if you let it. Just because I'm in my '60's doesn't mean I'm brain dead and yeah the bankers do have a lot of control, whether they're Jewish or not I know not! I don't think your nationality makes you an asshole expressly, In the muslim world it might help, although if you look at the U.S.A. from other nations, we are mostly thought of as assholes and warmongers. I don't think every citizen deserves that label, only the ones that are satisfied with the current political structure. To truly see the big picture, you must not limit your view to what you see on fox news or any other news show. You must read a myriad of views from all sides of a situation. Usually both sides think they're right and usually theres a little of right and wrong on both sides. You must decide for your self and then act accordingly! Peace!

medicinaluseonly said:

To truly see the big picture, you must not limit your view to what you see on fox news or any other news show. You must read a myriad of views from all sides of a situation. Usually both sides think they're right and usually theres a little of right and wrong on both sides. You must decide for your self and then act accordingly! Peace!

Click to expand...

You crack me up. Why bring up Fox News all the time? Does 60 Minutes have a more unbiased viewpoint? How about NBC or ABC? I'd be interested to know where you get your information that forms the opinions you have. Are you a fan of Mother Jones, The Nation and other left leaning publications?

Vi

Does it Bother you that much what I read, or watch. I read a lot of different views, I even watch fox news ( you must know what your enemy is up to), It seems to me that your the one with a one sided view, and yes I'm sure I'm a little more left than right, But that doesn't excuse the fact that war is evil and the perpetrators of war are evil, so I guess if you like war so much, why don't you volunteer to go to Iraq and participate. I doubt if you've ever carried a weapon in combat. 99% of those that have, hate war! By the way I read your exerpt on Pol Pot and the leftists. Now that was a real un-biased report eh, it could have been written by Carl Rove it was so far right! Peace!

ABC, Didn't they try and blame 911 on Bill Clinton?

"Does it Bother you that much what I read, or watch."

Nope, what you read and watch is none of my concern at all. The reason I brought it up is that you've intimated in respons to two or three of my posts that I'm some kind of crazed Fox News watcher. This is a common ploy of lefties when they are confronted with an opposing viewpoint that they have no idea on how to counter. Well, that and the Nazi and Racist accusations.

Oh, and the Pol Pot article ... did you read the whole thing? Quite different than the revised history composed by the Left Wing, no?

Vi

Yup, I read the whole thing, I suppose thats about as factual as any Bush Bashers article would be. That was definently written by a right wing radical. Look, I'm not an entirely left wing radical. When it comes to fiscal responsibility (which the Bush admin. has none) I'm pretty conservative. If our taxes can't be used to better our society, then I think they are being wasted. War is a stupendous waste of our taxes. war waged to make a few rich people richer IE. Cheny, Haliburton, defense contractors. bomb makers. weapons contractors, etc, is not only a waste, but an abomination. I assume you are a rich capitalist. How much is enough, is there ever enough money to satisfy capitalistic greed. I've heard of a couple of companies that treat their employees like a valued entity of the company, Ie. share the wealth! but 99.9% are run by greed mongers that think the workers are stupid dolts that are over paid and don't deserve any benefits, like Healthcare and pensions. Where do you come down on this one? Be honest!

Where do I come down on what? Which point are you alluding to? Well, I'll assume its this:

"I assume you are a rich capitalist. How much is enough, is there ever enough money to satisfy capitalistic greed."


I believe that greed, positively directed is a GOOD thing. We all act in our own self interests most of the time. Acting in one's best interest is what keeps the engine of capitalism running full steam. Its what provided you with a job during your working life. It provided you and still does with food and clothes on your back. It provides you with the car you drive and the gasoline that runs it. Look around you at all the infrastructure, the buildings, etc. Where did they come from?

Now then, I made the statement that greed positively directed is a good thing, but what if greed is negatively directed? We've seen evidence of that in such things as the Enron fiasco. Well, that's why we need policemen, courts and jails. But to just assume that ALL greed is bad is very short sighted at best.

Vi

As one whom professes to be a Christian, (I think I've gleaned that from you), you must know that greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. To say that all corporations are greedy might not be true, but I'll venture the percentage is in the high ninetys. Look, we all need to make a living, and some people,by virtue of their parents status mostly, will make a lot more than others. I concede that fact. The greed part comes in when no matter how much they make, they want more. If your a greedy S.O.B, don't try and sugar coat it. Don't try and justify greed. The Christian premise is to help one another and share the wealth, greed doesn't work in that synapsis! Maybe corporations should be illegal. The premise that managers are accountable to a group of greedy investors whom hold their feet to the fire, is basically what a corporation is. Something like 90% of all the money is held by 10% of the people. How selfish and un-Christian is that? Trying to justify greed, outrageous!

Man, you are all over the place. Working hard and gaining wealth in order to live a better life is NOT anti-Christian.

"The Christian premise is to help one another and share the wealth..."

Here's where you socialists make your biggest mistake. There is NOTHING anywhere in Christian doctrine encouraging the taking by force, that which someone honestly earns, to give to another. As I stated in a previous post, taking by force is NOT charity, it is theft pure and simple. That which you desire to take by force is a result of YOUR greed. You want what you do not have (the unearned) so badly that you will resort to "legalized plunder." The fact that you and your political party pass laws making your theft legal, in no way makes it moral.

I am not against socialism because I lack charitable instincts. I'm against socialism because I see it for the theft that it is. That's not to say that capitalism is an entirely moral system either (as pointed out in my Enron example), it's just the MOST moral economic system in existance.


Vi

I think not! capitalism rewards the people at the top way too much in comparison to the bottom feeders. If you Capitalists didn't have thugs (cops) to protect you, The people would make sure to re-distribute the wealth. as to what that would bring, without control, anarchy comes to mind. I just can't imagine with gas at $3.00 a gallon, Exxon I believe, gave it's retiring CEO, what, $100,000,000, That would have fed an entire small country for a year. It's total rape of the common man. No-one on this planet is worth that kind of money, No-one!

Ahh-Ha ... So you would be in favor of strictly limiting the amount of money one could make? May I ask what that figure would be ... and who would decide how much is enough?

Vi

Certainly not Me!

Not you what?

You've said that CEOs of Corporations make too much money and that no one on this planet is worth that much money. Well, how much is enough? How and by whom would control it? And how about the unintended consequences of limiting wealth creation ... would limiting reward also limit achievement?

Vi

the point may not be that there should be limits on what someone may earn but rather that wealth should be redistributed fairly

Ahh-Haa ...

So, who would decided what "fairly" would be? See, that's the crux of the matter right there. If a system is going to limit income so that any "excess" is redistributed to those who haven't earned it, what is the incentive to continue to produce? This has been tried many times before and the outcome is that the only incentive to continue to produce is because one has the business end of a gun pointing at one's head.

See, you call it "wealth redistrubution" when the proper name for it is slavery.

Vi

slavery=wealth redistribution lol, how so?