Wacko Cindy Sheehan cozies up to leftist dictator Chavez

Not sure how many administration officials are criticizing the administration. But that wasn't the point. He claimed that neocons say any criticism of the administration means you are with 'them.' If the most prominent 'neocon' criticizes the administration, then I think that's a false conclusion. No one can say that Kristol isn't a neoconservative or a prominent one.

 

Unlike Jim Jones chavez is not a cult leader, but an elected official. Chavez has shown authoritarian tendencies in the past, as well as democratic ones. He has gotten farther using democratic tendencies.

The one problem I do see with his policies is that he needs to make sure that he keeps some business leaders on hand to further move along the nation's economy and can't alienate them all. So far though, it is working out pretty well, and I am watching to see if he can keep it up.

It is your assumption that he will deviate from democracy but certainly isn't a given that he will.

 

'Favors the poor's interests over the middle and upper class' would probably be more appropriate. You are right though that calling Chavez a 'dictator' is wrong. If he had his way he would have been a dictator, now we'll just have to wait and see.

True.

 

BTW, just to clarify, I am no fan of Chavez, and I am as skeptical of his motives as you are. My point is this: he WAS elected, more than once, with a larger "majority" than our own president. Now, is any politician EVER popular with all camps? Of course not, I am sure he has his political 'enemies', and they're mostly the oligarchy and the wealthy, due largely to his socialist economic policies; that's understood.

I am merely objecting to Aceshigh falsely claiming he's a "dictator", because that's simply wrong on factual grounds, not opinion. It just tells me Aceshigh is not informed about facts regarding Chavez and Venezuelan politics, that he's simply repeating what he heard from some right-wing group/media/individual who hate Chavez with a passion, not because he's done anything wrong, but simply because they perceive him as not being "good for business".

With that being said, however, I too suspect he's more interested in following in Castro's footsteps and remaining in power, but that's only a suspicion and nothing more...

 

Hayes, I respect your opinions... can you explain to me why Rumsfeld still has his job? Truly, can any of Bush's supporters explain why Rumsfeld still has his job, in a way that doesn't amount to the nonsensical, "Bush wants him!"

I know you agree with Bush invading and occupying Iraq, Hayes, but I also realize there is much about the man you dislike. Can you explain Rumsfeld's continued presence in this Administration? He has been, in my opinion, an abject failure. Many Republicans think he's been an abject failure, and that includes some I know personally, not just the few willing to speak out in the public square.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

rummy's been in on this from the ground floor - he's going nowhere.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

I'd agree with most of this with the exception that its not just the wealthy that don't like Chavez. The middle class doesn't either. They're just outnumbered by the poor. You are right that he was elected and that Chavez is not a 'dictator.'

Yet.

 

Because Bush is an idiot. He put the operational trust in Rumsfeld to handle the details. If Rumsfeld says there were/are enough troops, for example, then that's that. Bush is not capable of making changes midstream, so to speak. Its probably why his businesses failed, why he was successful (so to speak) as a governor (since he didn't have any power), and why he's a terrible President. Being committed to action once you decide that is the proper course is a good trait, its why Bush was elected and reelected (in contrast to the perceived wiffle waffle flip floppery of Clinton/Kerry [note I said perceived since I'm a pseudo Clinton fan]. Having no ability to adapt to new or changing circumstances is a bad trait, which is why Iraq (along with every other significant issue) is a mess.

And I prefer 'intervening and stabilizing' to 'invading and occupying.'

 

I bet you do prefer 'intervening and stabilizing.' You're not gettin' it from me!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

"Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan -- who was invited to attend President Bush's State of the Union speech -- has been arrested, Capitol police say."

http://www.cnn.com

 

Fair enough.

BTW, had not seen you in the D&D for a while there, glad to see you're back...

 

Thanks! Combination of self imposed hiatus and too much going on at work.

 

I should try that sometime...

 

I predict Sheehan will have several more appearances:

1. BinLadun
2. Kim Ill Jun
3. Castro
4. France

 

I admire Sheehan's courage in what she's been doing. She's come under a lot of attack from portions of the right wing media and she's still standing. I think cozying upto Chavez was a political mistake. But lets be balanced about this. US administrations, not just Bush, have had closer relations to much more unsavory characters than Chavez. Its a long list of dictators (Marcos in the Phillipines, Papa Doc & Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Panama ... you get the idea).

 

And very few laud them for those relations. One might easily contend that those relations were far more easily justified than her visit with Chavez. However, the conduct of past administrations really has no bearing on an evaluation of Sheehan's conduct. It's similar to what happens in discussions about violence and Islam. The first respondent always says 'well Christianity has been violent.' Er, yes - but that in no way denies the initial charge.

 

The initial charge being what? That Islam is violent or peaceful or whatever? I think that has been adequately answered before: Islam is neither peaceful nor violent, it could be used as a tool to justify both given the right circumstances.

Is that what you're referring to?

 

Jon Stewart just ripped Sheehan on the Daily Show tonight. I DVRed it, and will post a couple of quotes tomorrow, if I remember to do it. Wow. I love Stewart... he's truly "fair and balanced." He made Bush and his pathetic SOTU look ludicrous. Jon was dead-on with both of them.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

You're missing the point. If I say A is doing X and X is bad. Then you say 'well, B did X,' that doesn't affect any determination about A.

 

Yea, but noticed the crowd was a tad subdued....oooohh, you are applying your bashy-repuby jedi tricks on our own? Noooo!....