Wacko Cindy Sheehan cozies up to leftist dictator Chavez

Why the hostility? I actually felt that the conversation we had regarding neoconservatism was very enlightening. I still have real issues with your viewpoint, but at least I understand that you draw a distinction between neoconservatism and the current adminstration. I'm not as certain of that as you are, but I can see your frustration.

Long story short I think the Bush administration is the real-life outcome of the neoconservative viewpoint you subscribe too. So they are neocons, in my book - but I try to recognize that you take offense to that label.

 

so did Hitler and Saddam Hussein, buddy. are they good leaders too b/c they "stuck to their convictions"? just b/c someone has "strong convictions" doesn't make those "convictions" right for an entire nation..... especially a democratic one.

way to sound like a moron.

EDIT: but i do agree that sheehan has officially lost it.

 

Don't let the facts get in your way...


Question: Since the start of 2001 when George W. Bush became president, in general, would you say his presidency has been a success or a failure?



And...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate in November's congressional elections who opposes President Bush, and 58 percent consider his second term a failure so far, according to a poll released Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/bush.poll/index.html



Keep D&D Civil.

 

No! you sound like a moron because your arguements are lame and your reasoning is at best moronic. Standing by your convictions is an admirable quality, it can also be stubborn and obstinate (great qualities when you're the supposed leader of the free world). And this seems to be the lynchpin of your arguement on why shrub is outstanding leader,puhleeeze. I'm so happy you can fall back on the "I'm in the majority,you're in the minority so don't be bitter" route, that's soooo not moronic isn't it? And trying to compare Chavez to Hitler. Yes there are so many similarities how could one have missed them.
I still think shrub will bring honor back to the WH way before you stop "sounding like a moron".

 

I say we compare what Bush has done for Americans versus what Chavez has done for Venezuelans. Which one is the better leader?

I don't care if Cindy wants a photo op with Chavez, we aren't at war with Venezuela.

 

yet...

signed,
Don Rumsfeld

 

See: Approval Ratings, George W. Bush.

 

Are we now concerned about photographs showing Americans cavorting with unsavory characters?

Does this hold true for all such pictures?

 

No hostility here. Sorry if it looked that way. As for the rest of it, the contention was that 'neocons' say you are either with Bush or the terrorists. That widely recognized 'neoconservatives' have criticized the administration's handling of the war in Iraq belies this contention. Whether or not the administration are neocons or embody neoconservatism, the above contention can reasonably pointed out to be false. Further, if the original contention had substituted, as I point out, 'the Bush-Cheney administration' for 'neocons' - then the revised claim could be reasonably supported.

I would assume so - how many times have we seen the Saddam/Rumsfeld picture?

What could possibly be the point of such an exercise? Jim Jones was popular, and at one point had removed his followers from their poverty stricken areas to a new paradise in South America. We saw how that turned out. Any balanced assessment of Chavez, IMO, concludes that his populism is merely a vehicle to gain, maintain, and increase his own power. His attempted coup earlier in his career points clearly as an indicator of this. There is nothing to indicate that he has implemented wealth redistribution for any other reason other than to gain a power base. Further, he is not universally liked in Venezuela either. A significant portion of the country has done everything from protesting to gridlocking the economy to remove him. He's about as popular as Bush was when reelected. He is also not an ally of the United States. There is nothing desirable to be gained by Sheehan cozying up to Chavez. He is using her and as Deckard said, that is sad. And a determination that Bush is not a good leader doesn't make Chavez a good one, or one we should admire or support.

 

I wish I could have said it so well. Right on the money! We have some very intelligent people on this forum.

 

Both Bush and Chavez are liars, sleeze balls and power hungry monsters. Both are liked by only half of the citizens they lead. Both play to people for popularity. Chavez plays to the poor, while Bush plays to the wealthy. I guess my point is that I wouldn't want either one as the leader of my country. Sadly I am stuck with one of the two.

 

can you name some?

not trying to be a smart-ass or anything, but i really cannot think of any.

perhaps our definitions of "neocon" are different.

 

Chavez is no Jim Jones. He does want power. However his policies are working. The poor are better off and the avg. standard of living has gone up as well. He may or may not really believe that seeing to the well-being of the neediest in the country is the right thing to do. But his policies are seeing to the needs of those people, and they are better off now than they have been in the past.

What is impressive is that he is doing it despite animosity from the U.S. The U.S. tried to get rid of him, and tried to use its considerable influence every way it can to stop his administration and their policies. He hasn't bowed down. He has continued to pursue policies that have been beneficial for the poorest and neediest of Venezuela's citizens.

As long as that, combined with continued democracy then I think despite the drawbacks, his experiment is a success.

 

What a pant load. You go from a comparison of Chavez and Jim Jones to proclamations about balanced assessments of Chavez. That's actually pretty funny.

Then you write "There is nothing to indicate that he has implemented wealth redistribution for any other reason other than to gain a power base."

What exactly would constitute evidence that his policies are intended to benefit the majority of Venezuelans, rather than to solidify a powerbase? Your smear is the same old and tired accusation that is used against every populist, left leaning politician in Latin America. If his policies are effective and make life better for most of his citizens then the natural consequence is an increase in his popularity and the gaining of a "power base." How diabolical!

You go on to say he is not "universally" liked in Venezuela. No ****. Can you please provide us with name of a world leader who is universally liked in their country. Thanks.

And finally you cite the fact that the elite in Venezuela have engaged in economic sabotage to try and oust Chavez as somehow and indictment of Chavez. Nice trick. If leftists pulled the same **** that the upper classes in Venezuela have been pulling, they'd be labeled "terrorists" in a heart beat.

 

Don't really disagree with this, except to say that Chavez is probably smarter than Bush.

Sure, you could start with the most prominent 'neocon' in the country, William (Bill) Kristol, son of Irving (the 'father' of neoconservatism) and editor of the 'neocon' Weekly Standard. For example, from one of his articles in the Washington Post:

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld...At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives...Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11...In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility...All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

The Defense Secretary We Have

Not yet. Jim Jones increased the material condition of his followers at first too. Populists like Chavez don't last unless they become anti-democratic like Castro. They can't because their economic model has a short shelf life. Chavez has shown authoritarian tendencies in the past and undoubtably will do so in the future. That doesn't make him the mass murderer Jones was, not saying that. My point of comparison is only that a short term increase in condition is not indicative of long term success, and that short term power gained through Chavez style populism often results in tyranny, especially in Latin America.

You just misunderstood my comparison. See above my response to FB.

It could be the same charge because it has also been true of other Latin American populists? And considering his attempted coup is might be reasonable to doubt his motives.

Not sure what your problem is but either tone it down or be ignored. The impression left (no pun intended) in this thread is one of Chavez being adored by Venezuelans. That he's about as popular as Bush was when reelected is a little more balanced conclusion.

Its been more than the 'elite' considering he's not at all popular with the middle class. No trick there. I doubt that mass protests and work stoppages would be considered terrorism.

 

That's been the idea all along: democracy is a matter of convenience, and if the people's choice is contrary to whom we want in power, we will call him "right wing dictator" and "fascist" and "dangerous radical"; these are old games that have been played quiet thoroughly in the past.

A lot of people in the political arena like playing these games, and with great citizens like Aceshigh, of course, they have a few die-hards that are willing to be told what to think and what to believe because they like the idea of trumping up 'enemies' whenever we need to galvanize the people into a frenzy.

Chavez' only offense is his 'populist-socialist' agenda that favors the people's interests over the corporations whom we do business with; he's a nationalist, and that's a death sentence, go back and read the history books...

 

cool, theres one. but how about some neo-cons who are in government/control national policy?