On the Friday edition of "Nightline," "20/20" anchor Barbara Walters appeared again to plug her sycophantic interview with Hugo Chavez, the virulently anti-American leader of Venezuela.
According to the ABC host, Chavez, who has called President Bush a murderer and a killer, simply likes to "poke fun at American leaders." During a discussion with "Nightline" host Martin Bashir, she also described the Venezuelan President in glowing, even flowery terms:
MARTIN BASHIR : "You've met him in person, you interviewed him, you spent time for him, for all the kind of brash things that he's actually said, how did you find him as an individual, as a man?"
BARBARA WALTERS: "Well, he was not what I expected. He was very dignified. He was warm, friendly. He likes the U.S. It's George Bush that he doesn't like. He also was very personal. He talked about how hard his life was, that he wished he could be in love but you can't be when you are heading a country."
Walters began the segment, which aired at 11:46pm on March 16, by noting how beloved Hugo Chavez is with the Venezuelan people. What she didn’t mention, however, is his authoritarian consolidation of power, including the fact that the Venezuelan National Assembly just gave him the power to rule by decree. (It’s easy to be popular in a dictatorship):
MARTIN BASHIR: "President Bush has just returned from a tour of Latin America but one country he did not visit is Venezuela and its controversial President Hugo Chavez. But that's exactly where my colleague Barbara Walters has just been and she's come back with a rare and exclusive interview with the outspoken leader. Barbara, good evening."
BARBARA WALTERS "Martin, thank you. Well, Hugo Chavez may be the one world leader with absolutely no fear about provoking the United States. As President Bush toured Latin America, President Chavez was close behind him, with a continental tour of his own, stoking the fires with fierce criticism of the Bush administration and its policies every step of the way. But how does he get away with it? I spoke to him Wednesday in the presidential palace in Caracas. This is Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez is so beloved by some of his supporters that they hang pictures of him in their living rooms in the poor barrios that ring the city. He talks to them almost every night on a regular TV and radio show. It's called 'Alo Presidente.' 'Hello President' starring him, usually only him. For at least two hours at a time, occasionally he takes callers. Like Fidel Castro. He calls Castro his political father.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (talking to Castro via telephone): "How are you?"
WALTERS: "He often uses his show and his frequent speeches to poke fun at American leaders. This week alone, as President Bush crossed South America, Chavez called him among other names a corpse and cosmic dust. But President Bush isn't the only one Chavez attacks. While we are talking about name-calling, you have called our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, illiterate. You said that she suffers from sexual frustration. You are a gentleman. What does it do to say such insulting things especially about a woman?"
CHAVEZ: "Well, that's not exactly what I said. They hung on one word. I would never say or tell a lady in this planet that she has a sexual problem. On the contrary, I have told jokes in relation to her. I once said that maybe she was dreaming of me because she kept on mentioning me all of the time in the Congress of the United States. In Europe, she kept on speak against Chavez, Chavez, Chavez and I said, well, I have to answer in some way. Well, I would like to talk to her but they don't dare talk us to. As a lady, I respect her. For the President of the United States, as a human being, I respect him but they are killing people. They are bombing entire cities in Afghanistan, in Iraq and they do harm, not only to the rest of the world, but to the United States."
WALTERS: "For all his rhetoric, we couldn't help but notice Chavez seems to have softened on at least one point. For the last two years, he's been insisting he's readying for an invasion from the U.S. He doesn't seem as sure now. Let me clear this up. Do you think the United States has plans to invade your country? And if so, are you arming your people?"
CHAVEZ: "First of all, we expect this not to happen. We would have to go to the mountains and fight from the mountains. As Fidel said, if this happens, a 100-year war would begin. However, we don't want this to happen. We will do anything possible to prevent this from happening but we need to get ready. There is a saying that reads 'If you want peace, just get ready for war.'"
WALTERS: "And Martin, let's remember, Venezuela is one of the top five sources of oil for the U.S., which may explain why he feels he can say what he likes."
BASHIR: "Barbara, this was a rare interview with a man who tends to make some fairly outrageous comments but in your interview he sounded vulnerable, maybe fearful of a possible assassination attempt?"
WALTERS: "Well, he is fearful. He survived a coup five years ago and he says that George Bush was behind it. He is convinced that the CIA does want to assassinate him and he says that if he is killed, the responsibility will be on George Bush. So yeah, he does feel that."
BASHIR: "You've met him in person, you interviewed him, you spent time for him, for all the kind of brash things that he's actually said, how did you find him as an individual, as a man?"
WALTERS: "Well, he was not what I expected. He was very dignified. He was warm, friendly. He likes the U.S. It's George Bush that he doesn't like. He also was very personal. He talked about how hard his life was, that he wished he could be in love but you can't be when you are heading a country. And he's had to abandon seeing his children. I mean, it was a side of him that, although he's still very tough and he's very angry, this is a man who has some sentiment and he is not crazy as some people seem to think. Not at all."
Notice how Walters blithely repeated, without the slightest bit of skepticism, Chavez’s accusations about the United States and the CIA.
Walters’ affection for Chavez shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. In 2002, she made this absurd comment about freedom in Cuba:
"For Castro, freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth. The literacy rate is 96 percent."
– Barbara Walters narrating her interview with Fidel Castro on ABC's 20/20, October 11, [2002].
The ABC anchor also discussed the Chavez piece on Monday's edition of "The View."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
hitler
March 19, 2007 - 17:43 ET by iveseenitallHitler was a "charmer" too. He loved (Ayrian) children and animals and he was a vegetarian. Isn't that special.---Walters has officially joined Sawyer as the enemy within.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
That was my first impression
March 19, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Gat New YorkThat was my first impression too. I could have seen this Park Avenue Limousine Liberal also finding Hitler engaging. I can understand the sheer ignorance of Hollywood idiots who spew their hatred of anything they disagree with, but when did the news media and journalists become so irresponsible as to embrace any and all enemies we (and, by the way, "they") have?
<Hitler was a "charme
March 19, 2007 - 21:21 ET by jonathananderson<Hitler was a "charmer" too.>
There it is ... even an antichrist can be charming ... and look who gives him a great big bear hug - A LIBERAL.
It boils down to this ...
Proverbs 28:4
They that forsake the law [truth, reason, and justice] praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.
They love Chavez because he h
March 19, 2007 - 22:33 ET by ghost of Mary Jo KopechneThey love Chavez because he hates Bush like they do. The enemy of my enemy is my FRIEND.
Support Our Troops. God bless the military.
http://adoptaplatoon.org/new/index.htm
"Dignified", &quo
March 19, 2007 - 17:59 ET by MightyMouth"Dignified", "warm" and "friendly" Hugo Chavez.
Sheesh Barbara! What did you think he was gonna do? Treat you like one of the Venezuelen peasants? Give me a break, she cannot be that naive, can she?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Libs love dictators...yet Bus
March 19, 2007 - 18:24 ET by mattmLibs love dictators...yet Bush is the fascist! It's a topsy-turvy world!
Yet for some reason, none o
March 19, 2007 - 22:40 ET by Hero SquadYet for some reason, none of them ever actually opt to live in one of these "socialist utopias" even when given every opportunity to do so. Curious that they choose life in the so-called fascist state, without hesitation.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
So...Barbs does the Hate Ame
March 19, 2007 - 18:24 ET by rbosqueSo...Barbs does the Hate America Tour eh?
Fascist-Fest '07 Hugo Chaviez, Fidel Castro, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Syrian President Bashar Assad. And she loves all of them!!!
What does that say for her and the MSM???
Oh, THAT'S why Bill was an
March 19, 2007 - 18:35 ET by eucherOh, THAT'S why Bill was an adulterer .... "you can't be (in love) when you are heading a country" !!!
Chavez is a Jew-hating bastar
March 19, 2007 - 18:47 ET by Mr. KafirChavez is a Jew-hating bastard. Anyone that adores him or likes him is a Jew-hating bastard. Therefore, Walters is a Jew-hating be-otch.
Why is he a Jew-Hating bastar
March 19, 2007 - 19:17 ET by mostlymoderateWhy is he a Jew-Hating bastard again? I forget.
Cause he makes pacts with Jew
March 19, 2007 - 19:31 ET by Lancasters Saved UsCause he makes pacts with Jew hating Iranian Despots who also happen to hate you Americans too. I can't believe how low some of your countrymen have fallen. Who is this Rosie Fellow I see mentioned here??
Thanks for the info. I just
March 19, 2007 - 19:39 ET by mostlymoderateThanks for the info. I just did a search on Chavez and learned a lot of new information about him. Quite frankly, I always thought of him as a little fish in a "big sea". As for your question about Rosie, she is a disgraceful, openly-lesbian, obese comediane that talks politics ad nauseam. Origninally, I think she entered political discussion because she wanted to fight for the rights of lesbians to marry and have children; however, now she talks about all sorts of things that she has no knowledge of. She is really disgusting. Just a quick glance at her could deem Viagra permanently ineffective. Yes, she is that ugly. Rosie O'Donnel: an American disgrace.
Such ignorant idiots...they
March 19, 2007 - 20:00 ET by gopsteveSuch ignorant idiots...they smugly sit there...mocking Bush without even realizing how fortunate that they are in this awful country to be able to do that...let them go to Venezuela and say the same type of things about Hugo.
Does Hasslebeck (Sp?...do n
March 19, 2007 - 20:05 ET by gopsteveDoes Hasslebeck (Sp?...do not care) have a voice? Is she only permitted to give her weak counter statements once or twice a month?
We have grown used to the these types of talk shows stacking the deck numberwise in favor of libs...I can take that...just give us someone who fights back.
I never have watched the show...reading about it from time to time here is enough to get my blood boiling
What other country gives su
March 19, 2007 - 20:17 ET by gopsteveWhat other country gives such wonderful platforms to sworn enemies like the liberal msm (redundant phrase I know)?
These people must be laughing at how they use our own media to present themselves as warm and caring, while planning for our destruction.
Of course, ABC must know it's being used, but doesn't mind being used, as long as it can prop up ANYONE critical of Bush...
I am waiting for the bin Laden puff piece...he is really a nice family man who loves his grandchildren...has a garden...loves puppies...
I agree, steve, Hasselbeck
March 19, 2007 - 20:21 ET by motherbeltI agree, steve, Hasselbeck is totally ineffectual as the "token conservative" on the show. And whenever she does open her mouth, Rosie quickly shuts her down, usually patting her hand in a kind of "there, there" action, like Hasselbeck is dotty Aunt Bethany from Christmas Vacation.
I don't watch it either, I'm at work when it's on, but I've seen enough clips from it here and there to ruin my appetite. They would never tolerate someone as brassy as Ann Coulter, but I would love to see someone softspoken like Mary Katherine Ham or LaShawn Barber put those self-congratulating morons in their place.
So- why watch the show? Why s
March 19, 2007 - 20:25 ET by MobiusStripSo- why watch the show? Why should anyone here care about the show? I don't watch that kind of tripe, never will. Maybe you can switch to Jerry Springer or whatever. Or, if you want real political dialogue, go and find some sources that offer substantive debate. Sitting here having your blood boil about some inane nonsense that is irrelevant to the extreme is just engaging in it.
What I recommend is that you spend some time discussing the historically relevant political issues that are now taking place. Discussions of actions and constitutional impacts on the federal level- also, we have a war going on. Concentrating on some fat comedian is a great way to release bile, but doesn't really get you to the level of discourse- unless you believe she is engaging in something worth responding to. Otherwise, as I've said before, this is just Floyd's Barbershop revised and revisited. Redstate has much better commentary, and the writers there don't have to clean up after themselves as much.
I've also noticed the blog topics here are shying away from some of the real serious stuff going on right now. But, Rosie is center stage... She was always a crappy commedienne, too.
Okay Mobius.What I recommend
March 19, 2007 - 20:28 ET by BlondeOkay Mobius.
What I recommend is that you spend some time discussing the historically relevant political issues that are now taking place. Discussions of actions and constitutional impacts on the federal level- also, we have a war going on.
Why don't you do a little compare and contrast with the State of our Union, and Imperial Rome?
You first...since you were the one who suggested the topic.
Appropriate links required, of course.
I wish Mobious would hurry up Blonde
March 19, 2007 - 20:34 ET by SportPoliticsI wish Mobious would hurry up Blonde, I'm waiting for this great and intellectually enlightening discourse and conversation he promised, but it seems he has bailed.
Sporty,Don't be surprised.He'
March 19, 2007 - 20:39 ET by BlondeSporty,
Don't be surprised.
He's googling like mad...but I just posed the question...so the answers aren't there yet.
Wait later (and old water skiing term of mine)....he'll be back about 4:00 p.m. tomorrow with a perfectly composed liberal lefty "compare and contrast".
Sheesh.
Sorry for the time delay- pos
March 19, 2007 - 20:48 ET by MobiusStripSorry for the time delay- posting elsewhere. FIne questions!
This would be great topic for a lengthy discussion, and thogh I'm no scholar of Roman history, I would like to engage in it at a future time. Maybe we could make a date?
My short answer is that Rome fell under it's own, diverse weight of trying to consume too many cultures across too broad an area. They were also plagued by internal power struggles between the Senate, representing the Republic, and Ceasars trying to maintain an Empire. Their geopolitical diffusion and internal strife and rot took many years to manifest itself in losing control first in the more far-flung aspects of the empire and then in more closely held areas. The coup de grace was the rise of christianity and the resulting fracture of central control due to that challenge, and the rising power of indiginous outside cultures that could effectively challenge their military dominance.
I'll go with you on this- again, fine questions.
Okay Mobius,Fair enough.Altho
March 19, 2007 - 20:59 ET by BlondeOkay Mobius,
Fair enough.
Although I must categorically state I never "make a date" with a liberal.
We'll discuss it here in the future. It's an interesting topic.
I must say, due to the responses I've seen you make lately, I've taken you out of my "pure troll" category. Nice.
Why don't you frame my question in an interesting way and post it on a forum? You can take the credit for it...I don't mind.
Have a good evening.
Cool- I'll do that. But pleas
March 19, 2007 - 22:43 ET by MobiusStripCool- I'll do that. But please don't refer to me as a liberal, which in this forum only offers a negative connotation and regresses everyone's ability to discuss. Let's just imagine we're having a beer at a bar, and segue into politics. You don't know me, I don't know you, what happens next is everyones's guess.
Sounds like a date to me!
May we refer to you as a Stal
March 19, 2007 - 22:46 ET by Free StinkerMay we refer to you as a Stalinist?
Sorry, Mobius.You've already
March 19, 2007 - 22:54 ET by BlondeSorry, Mobius.
You've already posted enough here to deserve that label.
And I already told you, I don't ever "date" liberals.
And quite frankly, in a bar setting, after about thirty minutes, I'd probably throw a drink in your face. Just guessing.
But we'll see if we can keep it civil. Or at least I shall try.
Typical liberal. Conservative broad says "no date". Lib hears what he cares to.
Sheesh.
I'm thinking of ducking this before it ever gets started.
WARNING !! Mobius is MARRIED
March 21, 2007 - 04:55 ET by upcountrywaterWARNING !! Mobius is MARRIED , however his wife ( a red head) is on (was on ) Maui, born 9,000 ft in Colorado ( I assumed south park) they have 2 STRAIGHT A kids !!Klein bottle kids came to mind (my guessing) oh well, recorded somewhere in NB. Sorry to see your yappin with this one side one edge dude.
Satisfactory, one minute Wiki
March 19, 2007 - 21:12 ET by BlazerSatisfactory, one minute Wiki assessment Mobius. Grade C-.
I like my assessment better. How about a liberal culture that was unable to embrace conservatism, even in the final hours of it's death throes. I believe the Roman Empire deteriorated from the inside out, due to the dereliction of it's core values.
They grew"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
We can add that into the deba
March 19, 2007 - 22:56 ET by MobiusStripWe can add that into the debate when Blonde and I have our date.
I read an interesting piece maybe two decades ago about how the Roman ruling class, as it degenerated into an orgiastic state, probably epitomized by Caligula's rule and then through Nero's, may have been become collectively insane because of the lead in the pewter wine chalices they used. Red wine is very acidic and will leach lead oxide readily. I think it was it was in Scientific American, many years ago, but haven't googled it. The theories go on and on, but the Fall of the Roman Empire merits discussion. Hope to see you there.
Well that was interesting Mobius
March 20, 2007 - 01:13 ET by SportPoliticsWell that was interesting Mobius. You libs have lived in an orgiastic state for several decades and have now become openly insane blaming it on lead paint and denying the drug induced psychosis problems. Addled by ADD, ADHD, BSD, and the feared VRWC, the liberal sexual revolution has declared the fall of the west is at hand.
Funny thing is Rome never fell, it just faded away, over many,many centuries. The Eastern portion of the Empire fell to Islam though. I wonder how much of that amounted to liberals trusting the enemy, as we see now.
That might sound good at a left wing college course
March 20, 2007 - 01:02 ET by Carl KolchakThe coup de grace was the rise of christianity
That might sound good at a left wing college course, but you forget about the Byzantine Empire which flourished until around 1450 when they were defeated by the Ottoman Turks. In fact the Byzantines called themselves Romans. The Byzantine culture was dominated by Christianity, and Constantinople was their main capital. So while Eastern Rome declined, the Western Roman Empire under Christianity flourished.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
That's the big catch Carl, libs always argue an incorrect premis
March 20, 2007 - 01:20 ET by SportPoliticsThat's the big catch Carl, libs always argue an incorrect premise. Rome didn't fall, it faded away, over many, many centuries.
Libs can argue over why it fell until the cows die in the fields ( and they have - and still they don't actually have it figured out - but they do have a lot of talking point lies ),since it never just fell. It sounds good though, since the sky is always just about to fall for liberals.
Sure, republicans warn of the new Islamic horror, but then there are historical war records to base that idea of the fall of (half) of Rome upon. *and without that fall of Constantinople - The Roman Empire would arguably be here with us today .*
I guess I wasn't surprised one bit when Mobius failed to offer up the Islamic Hordes as any part of his explanation in specific name. Instead, the evil internal Christain Bush ancestors did it.
LOL - It's funny man. No matter how much IQ floats around, stupid lies are in the end present, and the real main point is entirely lost in seas of unnecessary conjecture. Must be painful to be a liberal.
Constantine
March 20, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Carl KolchakWhen Constantine had his revelation to have all his soldiers put a Cross on their shields and vowed to convert to Christianity if victorious, Rome was involved in a Civil War. Constantine's victory over Maxentius helped pave the way for Christianity to spread. Constantine eventually became commander of all the Roman Empire, but realized he couldn't control it, so he divided it. There was an East and West Empire. Constantine maintained the leadership at Constantinople, and this helped lead to the acceptance and advancement of Christianity. Christians were no longer peresucuted, and Christians could spread their religion. This lead to Christianity becoming the main religion of Europe. Constantine's conversion to Christianity is one of the most significant events in the history of Christianity as well as world history.
When Rome had expanded so much, they also created many new enemies. They also were relying on mercanieries. Once the barbarians started defeating the Romans it started leading to their decline. The Goths, Vandals, Saxons, etc started attacking and gaining strength, while the Romans were losing strength. In the early 400's Rome was besieged by the Goths.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
ummm...why are YOU here the
March 19, 2007 - 20:45 ET by gopsteveummm...why are YOU here then Mr. Intellectual?
Unfortunately, it is more than just 'ole Rosie on one show...These liberal perspective shows are all over...even TV sitcoms get in their digs at conservatives...that was my larger point...
Well, then don't watch sitcom
March 19, 2007 - 20:53 ET by MobiusStripWell, then don't watch sitcoms either. Especially if they piss you off- is that why you have a cable bill? I honestly don't think that many people watching those shows actually vote anyway- but that would be a good study. Have to wonder about the NASCAR devotees, too.
Likewise Mobius Strip
March 20, 2007 - 01:28 ET by SportPoliticsLikewise Mobius Strip, if you don't see the big liberal bias in the news shows ( or those with political commentary- since that is news for so many nowadays ) then why are you here? Don't read this site, change your url.
It might be tough for you to actually follow the advice you just dispensed, you hypocritical piece of crap.
I'll see ya, or I won't, in the latter case you may have earned a tiny shred of respect.
Why are we here, Mobius?
March 19, 2007 - 22:38 ET by nkviking75Strange as it may seem to you, we are here to discuss the media and how it frames those important issues you're concerned about. Although we do debate the issues here, our primary purpose is to discuss how the issues are portrayed in the media. Rosie and her cronies at the View are part of the media and thus are appropriate fodder for this website.
Oh really mobiusstrip ?
March 20, 2007 - 00:33 ET by SportPoliticsOh really mobius strip ? Shying away from some real serious stuff ? You want to pass along the giant liberal bias pieces that have been missed ? That would be appreciated.
Somehow I have a feeling you didn't quite mean that, huh. Not very bright of you.
Ahhh, but fortunately we live
March 19, 2007 - 20:10 ET by BlameTheMediaAhhh, but fortunately we live here with the first amendment.
Depends
March 19, 2007 - 20:13 ET by PawpawNDepends on who's in charge. If BJ Clinton or Shillary, then you can't say anything against them, or you might lose your way in one of the National Parks......
Not sure of your point Blam
March 19, 2007 - 20:21 ET by gopsteveNot sure of your point Blamethemedia...
I think you are mocking me about bush bashing...but you really are making my point...we DO have these freedoms that people like cuddly Casto and helpful Hugo would never allow...yet the libs seem to love these guys...why?
I would consider myself partl
March 19, 2007 - 20:37 ET by MobiusStripI would consider myself partly liberal, more libertarian, but I certainly have no love for Castro or Chavez. Castro is a dictator; Chavez is close to that now. While one can make the argument that high literacy in a small island nation is a great metric for progress, the people have not been able to DO anything with that metric. The economy of a Marxist state, unless it embraces some form of capitalism, will not work. The Chinese are proving this now: a one-party state- the politic of Marxism- using a modified Adam Smith approach to kick our asses in a world economy. Smart communists- but still communists. Chavez is doing the same thing, essentiall, though more vocally. His country has resources, he has it under his thumb through a form of Populism, and he knows we want those resources. He's in the catbird seat.
Any questions?
Chavez is close to that now.W
March 19, 2007 - 20:42 ET by BlondeChavez is close to that now.
What planet are you from?
Catbird seat? How's Venezuela's military? Other than all the peasants on the beach with guns? Catbird seat? Do you have a clue, or just a hunch?
Chavez's danger is that he ha
March 19, 2007 - 21:02 ET by MobiusStripChavez's danger is that he has amassed dictatorial powers under a populist regime. He controls the oil- third (5th?) largest producer, capable of dictating in OPEC, critical to our interests. He thumbs his nose at Bush. Part of this is because he is a megalo politician, part is the history of the venezuelan oil company's history of corruption. When we were in cahoots with that company, it was rife, and this gave Chavez the popular support via the vote to become the Man.
It's not populism any longer
March 19, 2007 - 21:08 ET by RJChavez doesn't rule by "a form of populism" any longer. Once he rewrote the Constitution to make sure that he could not be removed, that all changed. He's a true dictator, a vicious street thug who violently suppresses opposition. So far, while he continues to consolidate his power, he does it under the table as much as possible.
I'm sure you're aware he's doing all he can to spread his form of Socialist Marxism throughout Latin America, and that he's made terrorist connections in the Middle East.
RJ,And once he's done "r
March 19, 2007 - 21:12 ET by BlondeRJ,
And once he's done "redistributing" the wealth....and expropriating private property....that's it. Show's over.
There is no more means of creating wealth once it's stripped from the productive class of citizens.
Downward spiral.
What is it with the liberal left who believe if they just keep doing it over and over, they'll finally have the correct outcome?
Idiotic!
The Venezuelan oil company wa
March 19, 2007 - 21:23 ET by MobiusStripThe Venezuelan oil company was controlled as an oligarchy with military backing for decades. The wealth was not distributed to the venezuelan people, who had the right to vote, and then voted in Chavez. He did not start the process. He took advantage of it. Like Mugabe. Like many others our foreign policy find useful until it goes awry.
If you can tell me a bit more about historical oil production and trade in Venezuela prior to Chavez, then you won't sound so shrill.
Shrill?Dude, one of my mother
March 19, 2007 - 21:37 ET by BlondeShrill?
Dude, one of my mother's best friend's husband was an oil exec in Venezuela for years.
Why don't you try to post the history, there, fella?
Once it's all socialized, there's no incentive to maintain it...poof...down the crapper.
Try again.
we can attack this subject to
March 19, 2007 - 23:00 ET by MobiusStripwe can attack this subject too, when I have time. I just don't like being labelled a liberal as a matter of course. Now I have to make dinner and we'll talk later
Sorry, Mobius.You came here a
March 19, 2007 - 23:06 ET by BlondeSorry, Mobius.
You came here and posted the way you did...you labelled yourself.
You know...when you lay down with dogs..you get up with fleas.
Hopefully, if you are here long enough, without self-destructing, you might shed some of your liberal leanings, and become at least a thoughtful person. Someone approaching conservative.
But you cook? That's cool.
Carry on.
Blonde: 23 Dateless Tro
March 19, 2007 - 23:10 ET by Free StinkerBlonde: 23
Dateless Troll: 0
Shrill? Just when I was thi
March 19, 2007 - 21:42 ET by RJShrill? Just when I was thinking you were able to conduct a civil discussion after all....
So what's your point, Mobi? All governments try to conduct foreign policy in "useful" ways. And America's foreign policy is often ham-fisted. Personally, I blame the State Department (that shadow government of the U.S.), for a good part of that.
As for Chavez, his first try to take over the country was a coup attempt, not "taking advantage of the system". Once in, he immediately and illegally rewrote the Constitution. Neither event had anything to do with the U.S., but with his lust for power.
Thanks, RJ.If my response was
March 19, 2007 - 21:49 ET by BlondeThanks, RJ.
If my response was "shrill"....I guess I'm losing my perspective.
Chavez is a tinpot dicatator.
He's living large right now.
Sulpherous indeed!
Youknow what Mobius, I think youlibs have the equation wrong.
March 20, 2007 - 01:52 ET by SportPoliticsYou know what Mobius, I think you libs have the equation wrong, you always state it incorrectly.
When the military hunta controls the oil, you libs never say much. Heck, you support Saddam now. You support the Iranian oil regime. It being a military dictatorship isn't a problem for you liberals. You pretend it isn't a problem for freedom pushing Evangelicals or republicans, but that isn't the point. You support dictators now, as long as they are against republican administrations, past or present.
The real truth is, it only matters to you libs when there is a claimed socialist dictator. Yes, that's the gigantic catalyst that sets you liberals up and you take notice, and come out in coalition with the commie king - making it a matter of discourse, and part of your agenda attacking the right.
That's what really drives "support or no support " from liberals.
When it's a dictatorship - you're pretty much quiet, if the dictatorship hates the your domestic enemy republicans, you totally support it- far beyond your wild imagination concerning "the condoning" supposedly done by republicans only moments ago in the years prior. When it is a claimed socialist dictator - you go out of your minds in support.
Those are the current "principles"of the democratic party.
The occasional admission "Saddam was not a good man" - or " Chavez has a few not too wonderful things - but he was rightfully and justly elected"....
PRETTY MUCH PAINTS THE LIB PICTURE EXACTLY.
Chavez doesn't rule by "a form of populism"
March 19, 2007 - 20:51 ET by RJChavez doesn't rule by "a form of populism". He began by literally rewriting the Constitution to make sure that he cannot be removed. He's a true dictator, a vicious street thug who violently suppresses opposition. So far, while he continues to consolidate his power, he does it under the table as much as possible.
I'm sure you're aware he's doing all he can to spread his form of Socialist Marxism throughout Latin America, and that he's made terrorist connections in the Middle East.
See my points above and find
March 19, 2007 - 21:08 ET by MobiusStripSee my points above and find that we really agree. There is nothing lovable about this guy- he controls a lot of power, and is indeed a thug. But consider the history of Venezuela and then understand how he came to power. ONce again, you will find, that we considered oil supply and profit above forming a democracy. If you want to go about Saudi Arabia- a fine example of a free market trading democracy if there ever was one- then bring that on, too. THe fact is that we are reaping the results of decades of policy and they are biting us on aur collective ass.
Mobi
March 19, 2007 - 21:12 ET by RJYes we do essentially agree....about WHO Chaves is. I argue with the rest.
(Didn't think you saw my post so I did a slight rewrite and moved it up to respond directly to your last post.)
RJ -that's called the convenient agreement to rebuff insanity
March 20, 2007 - 02:44 ET by SportPoliticsRJ -that's called the convenient agreement to rebuff insanity charges. Almost all liberals do it.
It always amazes me when the lib complains we didn't institute a democracy, that we instead "propped up the dictator". Then they complain when we dismount the dictator. Then they complain when the dictator declares war on us. Then they claim we installed the dictator. Then they say the dictator means us no harm. Then they saywe made this mess. Then they say the USA is actually the Creator and Ruler of the Universe and that's wrong.(they had said it all along)
Then, when we do try to institute one or twodemocracies, the libs whine and moan it's none of our business, and their country is sovereign,and they want to be ruled by their cultural dictator and tribal traditions, and on and on and on....
They have their damned cake, and eat it too, constantly. It's a never ending whining stream.
Now this idiot Mobius proclaims that what happened in Venezuela - is OUR FAULT.
It just amazes me how GIGANTIC the lib ego is when it comes to claiming the USA controls everything and causes through effect EVERYTHING - then immediately turns 180% and demands that we stay out of it all, whilelying that "our policy" had a bad effect -since our policy if so damned powerful as just claimed "actually led to the current situation".
As I said here in this thread already, the REAL CATALYST is when the liberal piece of crap NOTICES a claimed SOCIALIST commie dictator. At that point they immediately spew their never changing nor factually supported opinion, that is filled with lies and no basis in fact, and stuffed full of contradiction, to proclaim Americas wrongs, and specifically the right wings policy failure - which is at that moment the ONLYone that ever existed, since democrats are by default exempt from having a foreign policy at all for that momentous revelation by the lib idiot, that he or she has repeated a thousand times for twenty different situations. It's a cardboard cutout quack when examined, which takes about seconds considering how shallow and full of holes it is.
Consider what we've heard. Chavez is "democratically elected" - he's a "democracy leader" with true care for the people. On the other hand, in the same thread when it's convenient, our supposed "keeping the former dictatorship in tact" for oil (stealing) purposes has come back to bite us. Then, the "admission" returns another strange flip flop - and the democratically elected leader of the free people that hates Bush - is suddenly - yes a dictator- with real problems.
When liberals hear about the smell of sulphur at the podium, they applaud, obviously citing their " did nothing for decades about the propped up oil regime" whine - displacing it of course on the heads of "republicans and America under only their control" by default, automatically, as if everyone totally agrees. When their new commie dictator hero whines he has been targeted for removal - the libs go into another accolading uproar of euphoric support for the foreigner...
Gee if only the libs could maintain the idea that their new commie dictator hero never tried a military coup - never changed the laws to become benighted as dictator forever (something they endlessly claimed Bush had done- and still deeply suspect - WHY OF COURSE THEY DO THAT'S WHAT THEIR HEROES DO - SO THEY CANNOT IMAGINE THEIR DOMESTIC POLITICAL ENEMY WON'T BE JUST AS BAD) they could actually claim a left wing victory. And if they could actually do THAT - then they would have to reluctantly admit - that our "propping the former regime" for oil never really was the goal, and our policies actually produced a "lovely liberal democracy".
Instead, it's freakin flip flop lie central. If actions are taken to try to produce a better situation - or restore a valid one after coup, the libs fight it 100%, and call it an overthrow( See Iran ). If actions are taken to try to restore the former rightful (or in place) ruler the libs call it " installation" - as if it just came out of nowhere ( see the Shah of Iran in lib re-history lies ). If a rabid tire necktie wacko steals the top spotone time too many, and the USA rescues him from slaughter, and carefully helps the nation remain in order with succession outlined in their constitution - it's a "kidnapping" and an atrocity and takeover - accordingto the flaming wackos wecall democrats. (see Haiti )
I'd love to find an intelligent lib that can actually explain their opposites dogma to me, and make me a true believer, but I just find them totally opposed to their own notions in this n that case only seconds after they loft "thus" as a truth, and then, not long after, it's back the other way with a new twist coupled with a big steamy pile of bile as a complaint purportedly misremedied by their opposition - that moments later they claim should never be acted upon, because it would be wrong to do it - even as seconds ago they demanded it as the correct policy by implication.
Damned, always damned, no matter what, and of course the factors are:
1. against the "republicans America" by any means without care to rumor or error or lack of principle or opposing talking points even siding with declared enemies and the foreign sworn enemies of classic liberalism.
2. always for any socialist commie-like talker dictator coup leader despite glaring and gigantic problems(including Mossadeq - Chavez, Saddam - Ahmadenijihad - the northnams, the Kmher Rouge - the list seems complete), with the best bs capable of being mustered to twist the plot and actors around so the lib dictator god anus smells sweet and righteous even in "revenge against us" all.
It really is amazing. They always have to slip in their never openly described or detailed theory that "the USA caused the other nation to be the way it is" every time without fail, WE DID IT ALL,if it is bad, and then of course "They the People" - tossed out the evil BushUSAplan - and instituted on their own and against our constant meddling the great liberal socialist named" blah blahblah"
When republicans tell me these democrats(liberals) hate the USA, always blame America first, and love communists and hope that they can finally institute the "real communist utopia" that "comes after the rise collapse of capitalism" - I believe them, because that is exactly what the nostrums from the libs arguments declare.
I suppose if tomorrow we were off oil and energy independent, the liberals would shriek that we have withdrawn from the world and aren't engaged and having a world discussion as we should be, and have thrown the world in financial ruin by not purchasing the only thing they have to sell us to stay alive- OIL. Then they would accuse the USA of genocide, by not quickly enough exporting and giving away it's technology advantage. " How can you stop their economies dead in their tracks like that - the oil price plummeted from your evil energy independent invention - and you committed world genocide just to be the big player and burst your economy to the top of the world againlike you were after WW2 .."
It would be endless screaming....
No- his message was populist,
March 19, 2007 - 21:14 ET by MobiusStripNo- his message was populist, he won the vote to power via that message, and like Mugabe he will probably screw it up in a horrible way. No argument here. About the terrorist connections: it's quite sad that our own government has been disproven on making terrorist connections with Sadam, because when they really occur, no one will believe us anymore.
You are saying he Lied His Wa
March 19, 2007 - 21:17 ET by NL207You are saying he Lied His Way To Power. By your own reckoning this man is a thug.
I said nothing like that. Wha
March 19, 2007 - 21:29 ET by MobiusStripI said nothing like that. What I wrote was that Chavez rode in on the coattails of a populist movement by voting citizens that were not realizing sufficient gain from the use of their country's resources. Prove me otherwise. I've also written that I agree he is a thug.
Parallels abound. You weren't talking about Bush, were you?
He campaigned as a populist.
March 19, 2007 - 21:38 ET by NL207He campaigned as a populist. -- your claim. -- I happen to agree.
"he controls a lot of power and is a thug" -- your words from further above.
Then you compare his future to Mugabe's history, who also campaigned as a populist leader but whose actual exercise of power has been that of a tyrant. -- tacit admission that Chavez has already been exercising power like a tyrant or the comparison would be a pointless.
Now, do you actually believe he would have been elected if he had openly told people he would rule as a marxist tyrant? I doubt it, or why would you try to explain his election as being populist based?
Marxist tyrants are thugs. Chavez is a thug by your own words.
You are now proven otherwise.
enjoy your petard.
Did I not write repeatedly he
March 19, 2007 - 21:49 ET by MobiusStripDid I not write repeatedly here that I consider Chavez to be both a Marxist and a thug? That he rode in on a populist ticket and has become a thug? And would YOU design a campaign laying out just how you would screw the populace?
Somehow, though in agreement with you, I am now "proven otherwise"? You must have a difficult space for two people to live in. Just a rant without logic, that was.
Interesting. Some enterpris
March 19, 2007 - 22:05 ET by NL207Interesting. Some enterprising soul just deleted two posts, and I do mean deleted, not moderated. That is simply non-kosher. There are programmatic ways to prevent double posts that I wish this site would adopt.
As for your rants. You objected to my assessment that you must believe Chavez intentionally mistated [Lied about] his policies during his election campaign. I merely pointed out to you that you yourself do not believe he is actually a populist, but instead see him as a Robert Mugabe style thug. This is not any kind of populist. Therefore, you must also believe that Chavez lied his way into power since he campaigned as a populist and is not. Alternatively, you must believe the Venezuelans might have elected him anyway even if he told them he was a thug.
you missed the "our fault" part, NL207
March 20, 2007 - 03:12 ET by SportPoliticsyou missed the "our fault" part, NL207....
" The USA policy that supported the former regime" -- resulted in "the populist election of Chavez"....
IT'S OUR FAULT- BECAUSE OF GREEDY BIG OIL BUSH... CAN'T YOU READ THE MOBIUS ON THE WALL ?
( Well, he can't allow himself to be read,if you know what I mean )
It's more LIB DIATRIBE ... in a candy coated disguise, without the also insane "he's a great guy" silence.
WHAT ELSE DO YOUEXPECT MOBIUS TO CONCLUDE AFTER WE DIDN'T SUPPORT FORMING A DEMOCRACY THERE - WHEN WE GUZZLED THEIR OIL FROM THEIR BILEOUS FORMER REGIME ?1??1???1?????!?????????????????????????????????????????????
Please beat me with a large metal bat banned from NYC fields, before another liberal cries.
MOBIUS THE WISE NON LIBERAL " But consider the history of Venezuela and then understand how he came to power. ONce again, you will find, that we considered oil supply and profit above forming a democracy. If you want to go about Saudi Arabia- a fine example of a free market trading democracy if there ever was one- then bring that on, too. THe fact is that we are reaping the results of decades of policy and they are biting us on aur collective ass. "
Yes, there you have it. The libs expect us to support a democracy that NEVER EXISTED... somehow - we support that which isn't there...or better yet we BOYCOTT THEM - like we do CUBA ? CORRECT ?
THE LIB IS AN UNTHINKING JACKASS ALWAYS. THEY SHOVE THEIR FOOT DOWN THIER OWN THROAT AND OUT THEIR OWN ANUS AND NEVER EVEN NOTICE. IT IS SHAMEFUL. AND THAT IS THEIR CORE BELIEF SET, THE ONE WHERE THEIR OWN SIZE 10 HAD REAMED THEIR PROSTRATE GLAND.
Madelline " I think it was worth it " - declaring the 600,000 dead with not supporting the regime was worth it - along with all the OIF corruption... yeah baby - that lib solution is great
EXCEPT WHEN IT IS DESTROYING THE COMMIE CUBAN ECONOMY...ACCORDING TO THE SAME... AND WE NEED TO STOP THAT YESTERDAY - ITS WRONG AND EVIL - WE SHOULD BE PROPPING INSTEAD--- !!!!!
I seriously just want to beat some sense into them. I can't help it. They need the living daylights beaten out of them. I'D THOROUGHLY ENJOY BEATING THEM SENSELESS,LITERALLY.
( I hope that made it easy for you libs to dismiss everything I've said. I know it will. Your emotions aboveall reason rule you. )
g******, I'd sure like to know how we form a democracy in Venezuela... what is the is the lib outline for that arriving ? F*** maybe if we just considered it lib utopia would flower over all the lands.
BRING IT ON.
No questions Mobius, but certainly disagreement
March 20, 2007 - 01:34 ET by SportPoliticsNo questions Mobius, but certainly disagreement.
The Chinese have kicked our asses in the global economy ? They make trinkets for pennies, while we buy them for nickels, and still have the massive wealth spread about, with the decay of their loans coming in the form of inflation. They lose, we win.
Would you make something for a dirt cheap sale price, loan the purchaser your money to buy it, then watch any and all returns decayed by inflation ?
LOL- Yeah,they're kickin our ***, alright, in your fantasy world.
We should have flattened Cuba
March 19, 2007 - 20:40 ET by mostlymoderateWe should have flattened Cuba in the 60's and turned the place into a resort, or an animal refuge. Cuba is in an absolutely beautiful part of the world. I can't believe it is still in the hands of communists.
MobiusStrip....Populism?
March 19, 2007 - 20:51 ET by gopsteveHey mob...
Populism? Chavez? I guess I need to look that first word up again.
Do you think we really ever hear what the average "man on the street" thinks in that country?
I don't know if you've ever h
March 19, 2007 - 20:56 ET by NL207I don't know if you've ever heard this before, but they grow tobacco in Cuba. They make this tobacco into the best Cigars in the world. We don't call traditional cigars "Havanas" for nothing.
Maybe he thinks this remark i
March 19, 2007 - 21:08 ET by NL207Maybe he thinks this remark is talking about the jews?
"
"
He IS talking about the Jews!
March 19, 2007 - 21:40 ET by mostlymoderateHe IS talking about the Jews!
I happen to agree with this o
March 19, 2007 - 21:45 ET by NL207I happen to agree with this opinion.
There are, however, a great many liberal apologists who are busily engaged in explaining away these Chavez remarks as a misunderstanding or a product of trans