Bush wasn’t even cornered but he still does it, so that shoots that one down.
Chavez has a lot less material to work with…and he’s doing a lot more with less than our pal Bush.
-XT
Rubbish, complete rubbish, Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, and that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, Chavez has many times more before he can achieve the reach the levels of Bush and his cohorts.
When you look at US interferance in South America, it has cost plenty times more than Chavez has ever been accused.
By the way, just how many people is Chavez allegedly suppposed to have killed, because after all these years, the numbers seem to be unusually difficult to find.
Its always accusations, and never substantiations against Chavez isn’t it?
The bluster about the Falklands, which was the subject of the OP, is not even slightly taken seriously, not even by his immediate neighbours.
I also think this idea of sticking to one narrow part of the discussion about Chavez is simply a tactic to keep away from uncomfortable facts.
Face it ** Jakmannii**
I am simply not going to stick to your agenda, because doing so would end this thread with little exploration of the issues that have made Chavez behave the way he does,.
Your agenda is just to stick with the shabby headline in the Times, but it seems odd you cannot accept a wider discussion.
We know that item in the Times was taken out of context, we know it was poorly translated, and it is symptomatic of the way Western media portrays him.
So far the only evidence provided show Chavez to have run a regime where some of his security forces have misbehaved, used innappropriate force and torture, yet that has been no linkage wahtesoever provided that holds Chavez directly responsible.
There are plenty of reasons why Chavez might feel paranoid, mainly becuase the US has supported coup attempts against him, and it would explain why his own security agencies behave the way they do.
It is a classic trick to provoke internal security forces into over reaction and has been used by terrorists for decades.
I would expect just about every world leader to behave this way if their nation had been subjected to an attempter take over by a foreign power.
The one nation that can truly be held as having a large part to play in the overthrow of nations tries to show itself up as some model of freedom and democracy, yet it imprisons and tortures abductees on Cuban soil in order not to allow them access to it own judicial processes.
Its a fair process to look at those who make the biggest noises against Chavez and eximine their motives, and their own behaviour, because it reeks of hypocrisy on a grand scale.
This is not misdirection, were it not for US interferance, the government and security forces in Venezuela might well behave differantly, but we will never know this.
That makes Bush more evil than Charles Manson, because Manson only managed to kill a house full of people!
Or maybe your criteria needs a bit more thinking.
Bush has/had the power of the worlds most powerful superpower at his disposal…and (at the time) the support of not only the Congress/Senate but pretty much the citizens as well. Chavez on the other hand has a lot less to work with, no?
Its an apples to oranges comparison. You are talking about deaths from whats essentially a war compared to deaths from the supposed peaceful governing of a nation state. Besides, killings aren’t the only bad things folks in power can do. I think Chavez is worse because of the path he’s pretty obviously taking his nation on…not because of the numbers of people he and his government has put up against the wall.
Here’s the thing…because Bush is bad doesn’t mean that Chavez is good. By proving Bush is the ultimate evil you have actually done nothing but muddy the waters concerning Chavez…as they are independent of each other. Put it another way…because Hitler was a bad guy that didn’t mean Stalin was cute and cuddly. Or, more to the point, because Stalin was much worse, that didn’t mean Castro was a saint (since Hugo, much as he would like to be, is a piker compared to a REAL world leader).
Well…no. I’d say his record pretty much speaks for itself. By the same token I’ve noticed a trend of hand waving away his many faults or a tendency to bury one’s head in the sand when it comes to good ole Hugo.
-XT
We’re not comparing presidents with insane cult leaders; we’re comparing presidents with presidents. Bush, as a national leader, has done much more damage in the world than Chavez has. In fact, he has probably done more damage to his own country than Chavez has.
Don’t mean to sound trite here but…well, duh! The US is a major world power. The Peoples Republic of Venezuela (just kidding) is, well, not. Hugo couldn’t do more harm than the US does just by being (or as much good for that matter) if he tried.
Long term I tend to doubt it…but time will tell. Such a comparison is pretty much by definition partisan however. You like Chavez and you dislike Bush…so its not mystery why you would think this. I dislike Bush and pretty much hate Chavez…so, again, no mystery why I would think Chavez is ultimately going to destroy HIS country why Bush will just be a bad dream by mid-term of the next Presidency. Also, you think some of what Chavez is doing is the best thing since sliced bread for Venezuela…while I think he’s on a course to destroy his nation within the decade.
Guess time will tell, ehe?
-XT
Well, yeah, but not as much as I used to. All that Bonapartist presidentialism and authoritarianism kinda sticks in my craw, regardless of the ends towards which it is directed, and the human-rights violations are even worse.
Even left-wing intellectuals are of two minds about the ultimate tendency of his “Bolivarian Revolution.” See here.
But there is no question the Venezuelan people do like him, and it’s more their business than anybody else’s.
And some of the things Chavez does are just plain silly. Like discouraging celebration of Halloween, as an instance of American cultural imperialism. Sure it is, but, dude, where’s the harm in little kids putting on costumes and begging for candy?! Lighten up, Hugo!
Chavez is certainly a problem to his own people, but I can’t help thinking that the reason he gained power in the first place is that the electorate see him as better than the alternatives, which is not a ringing endorsement.
He is very much a populist, and it works, and having US historically interfering at the most extreme levels in South American internal politics gives him a huge amount of ammunition to use politically.
The fact that Chavez is such a popular leader in Venezuela speaks volumes about the national mood when he speaks out about the US.
There are other South American nations whose population probably feels the same way too, and no doubt Chavez would like to exploit that.
I still have not seen any estimates of the numbers of deaths that can be laid directly at Chavez door, just lots of rhetoric about how undemocratic he is and some talk about repression.
Surprisingly little in the way of hard facts beyond his own silly speeches.
I will not further comment on your deliberate ignoring of the economic hardships Chavez is visiting on his people and his human rights violations (and yes, they’re his, and not excesses by his security forces which in private he is simply appalled by).
My God, you’ve acknowledged the OP! [Shawshank Redemption] It’s a miracle! [/SR]
And finally, an acknowledgement that you feel the need to defend your tu quoquing. About time.
It’s not a mystery. He’s a pint-sized loudmouth and would-be tyrant who’s found that he can bend public opinion in the region his way by pitching himself as a defender of Latin America against the Evil Yanquis. And he’s got you excusing his failures and excesses on that basis too, so I suppose his strategy works on at least part of the British intelligentsia.
At some point one would expect you’d find it mortifying to be manipulated as easily and completely as the most uneducated Venezuelan peon, but we haven’t reached that point yet. 
P.S. Americans still don’t give a rat’s ass about the Falklands. I suspect part of your concern in trying to turn this kerfluffle into a U.S. imperialist plot, is that you are mortified about the possibility of a revival of Falklands jingoism in the U.K., and your arm-waving is meant to distract others from considering this possibility.
Carry on.