The WaPo Loooves Those Chavistas


The Washington Post's David Montgomery just loooooves those Chavistas ("What a Difference a Day Makes; Venezuela, Toasting Freedom on the Fifth"). Along with the typical Washington party stuff, he goes to great pains to explain how we're not so different, Chavez and us, eh? (You can almost hear Eli Wallach in the background: "If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.")

An embassy official gives a ceremonial reading of the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence. Alvarez declares, "Now, more than ever, Venezuela is struggling to assume a full independence" -- referring to the freedom to carry out the Chávez program without meddling by the United States, which now plays the part of Spain in the national drama.

Right. The freedom to carry out the Chavez program. That would include harboring the Buenos Aires JCC bombers, making nice with Iran, supporting FARC terrorists in neighboring Colombia (a real democracy, by the way), suspending Constitutional liberties, shooting down your opponents in the streets, stealing elections, and aiding and abetting Middle Easterners in getting into the US illegally. No reason for us to meddle at all. Of course, we play the part of Spain in Chavez's propaganda, not the actual national drama, and not, one suspects, in the minds of the mass of Venezuelans.

Chávez takes Bolívar as his revolutionary role model.

Chavez takes Castro as his revolutionary role model. He takes Bolivar for a ride.

Elected president in 1998, Chávez has wrought large changes, with popular support, extending access to health care, education and a political voice to the poor. But he has also taken greater control of the oil industry, obtained legislative permission to rule by decree and closed a television station. Critics in Washington say he's leading the country away from democracy.

"...Legislative permission to rule by decree." Oh, that. Gee. Why are you Americans always harping on that? I mean, it's not as though he's going to close opposition TV stations or anything like that....oh, wait...Well, I mean it's not as though he's going to close down something serious, like a newspaper. At least not, you know, our newspaper... Again, never mind changing the Constitution so he can run for President for life every few years, or stealing the recall referendum a couple of years ago. It's what you don't say.

Alvarez bats away such cavils. Why, he asks, is Venezuela held to one standard of democracy when there is nationalized oil in Mexico and television stations are closed in other nations? "Do you think it is a democratic practice that if you want to be elected senator in this country, you need at least $20 million?"

Well, yes, actually, I do. He doesn't need that money personally - we've got three Senate candidates here in Colorado in the last four years to prove it. But yes, actually, the fact that he has to curry favor with actual constituents and actually raise money to run for office, yes, I do think that's democratic. Next false equivalency, please?

A table near the statue holds copies of Chávez speeches. One of them from January devotes a page-and-a-half to excoriating José Miguel Insulza, the secretary general of the Organization of American States: "He's a true idiot, from the 'i' to the 't,' " Chávez said. But hey -- isn't that Insulza himself, here now, joining Alvarez in laying wreaths to Bolívar? "I am not the first one or the last one to be treated that way by President Chávez," Insulza says later.

Change Chavez to Kim Jong Il, and Isulza to Hans Blix, and they could almost be puppets.

There is no Chávez in this vast, mythic rendering of Venezuelan history, as there might not be a President Bush in a July 4 recounting of the Story of America.

So there are, at the moment, limits to the cult of personality. Only remember, Chavez makes much of his mixed heritage. Does Mr. Montgomery actually know the traditional Venezuelan independence story well enough to know that it isn't being jiggered around for Chavez's benefit? I doubt it. Then, this:

Shannon [assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs] says he has come out of "respect for the people of Venezuela, and a recognition that while in democracies governments may come and go, the ties and friendships between people will remain."

Nice. So tell me, Mr. Shannon, exactly when Chavez plans to give up power? The left never really bought into the Cold War. Those who didn't openly sympathize never missed a chance to draw false similarities between us and our enemies. Old habits die hard. Cross-Posted at View From a Height.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great break down of this arti

Great break down of this artical Joshua

Why, he asks, is Venezuela held to one standard of democracy when there is nationalized oil in Mexico and television stations are closed in other nations

Kinda make you wonder just what the heck they are thinking. With this kind of retoric they had better not make Hillary mad.

Apparently

Apparently the Washington Post never met a dictator that they didn't try and flatter. Isn't it interesting that an American newspaper dosn't seem to mind when a foreign dictator takes over a private TV station and installs a state-run Channel in it's place.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

The Dude, the Bad and the Ugly

Since we are quoting Eli Wallach, I honestly can see Dude Montegomery riding in his carbon footprint car thinking that America is a mirror of the bad Chavez involved with the rather ugly Islamo and narco communist terrorists around the world, because if one looks at the reality:

You can see Dude Lara Logan of CBS airing al Qaeda raw footage, the rather bad Teddy Kennedy with Hillary Clinton with the Abu Grab "torture" coup nonsense against the White House will the rather ugly twins of William attack women Clinton and GlobAL Gore spanning the globe selling out America for dollars.

Dude Montegomery exists in a corral where his icons are all horse's backsides spewing what comes out of that side of the fence. BATFE on a ruining gun sellers, Homeland giving get out of free jail cards to border busters while Americans are strip searched and required to have passports, all under the smiling faces of petty dictator wanna be's Hillary Hamrod Clinton with more dead bodies and bimbos around than a Stalin purge, Breck Girl Edwards with his exclusive compound driving the poor neighbors out, Comrade Chris 'waitress sandwhich' Dodd, brother Barak HUSSEIN Obama, Dr. Strangepork Kucinich and the other little comrades all resemble a 3rd world communist state or a David Letterman cocktail party.

Kind of amazing isn't it that cheap Italian westerns are better movies than what Speilberg, Lucas or whatever else is being spewed out now in multi million dollar Hollypropaganda. The murderers are now the heroes and the world is told they are just like us.

To quote another movie, the Wild Bunch in Ernest Borgnine to William Holden, "They ain't nothing like us Mr. Pike. We don't go around hangin' people".

Perhaps comrade Chavez can help Dude Montegomery though in shutting down CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and the WaPo as the comrade has done in Venezuela.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Nice work.Showing yet again

Nice work.

Showing yet again there ain't a commie dictator (who's gonna be roasting hell) that the leftist media, the hollowoodenheads, and the movon dot commies didn't bend over a table to please.

Move over Walter Durranty, his job awaits Montgomery at the New York Slimes.

You've seen the spoof. Now see the spoof of the spoof on YouTube: The Clintpranos: Bada Bong

on "they say"

Joshua. Great catch. This is one sad piece of propaganda indeed.

I noticed this faceless analysis in Montgomery's lovely and glowing piece on Chavez:

Critics in Washington say he's leading the country away from democracy.

I've noticed that so-called journalists use this "critics say," expression when they (the journalists) don't agree with the critics. They can't bring themselves to actually make the charge.  We see it almost every day in the presidential race. If there is a charge (especially if one of a criminal nature) against a Democrat, then it is, "critics say" or "critics claim," or "critics contend." On the other hand if it is a Republican who is being attacked, or charged with some issue, the journalists find themselves leading the chart. This is because when it is the conservatives at the center of an issue, it is the same journalists who are diving (with their souls blazing) into investigative reporting - digging up everything they can get their hands on to lead in the attack. When it is a Democrat, oh, "critics in Washington say." 

Meanwhile, did Montgomery mention these folks, that sure as heck don't seem to support Chavez: Mass Chavez opposition.

"Columbia (a real Democracy, by the way)

As the press fawns over Chavez, our US Senate is trying to make sure Capitalism doesn't continue to spead in South America through the new democracy in Columbia.  The constant support for dictators and this restriction of trade to a country well on its way to becoming a powerful ally in South America where we will need friends once Chevez completes his deal with Putin for a "$3 billion arms deal ...and to sell him nine top-end diesel submarines".

I don't know much at all abou

I don't know much at all about Columbia and its political scene.  Part of that is due to almost nonexistent reporting I've come across in my daily readings.  Your post (and link) suggests that Congress is throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.  What is Congress' end game concerning Columbia?  I would think we, USA, would want a strong ally in South America given the communistic leanings of Venezuela.  Chavez is a megalomaniac who is trying to infect South America with anti-North American ideology.

As to the second part of your post, Putin will do whatever Putin needs to do concerning his own interests first and Russia's second.  The USA is not even in his top 5 ally list, although we have inched up one spot since deposing Saddam in Iraq.  Keep him as an ally if possibly but never trust him blindly.  I would not put our military technology on Russian soil.  Putin will declare some issue or another and then seize our technology, dismantle it and then learn how to advance their own technology in both offensive and defensive (counter-missle) technology.