“…To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order … it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the aim of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law”
Why yes, he had declared himself a socialist, hadn’t he? Castro himself visited. We obviously couldn’t permit that.
And all those tortures and murders, in the thousands, of protesters of the military regime we supported? Just things that sorta happen, huh? :dubious: A small price to pay to soothe manufactured fears in Washington, at any rate. “The right thing to do”, as you say.
By whom? 
I didn’t ask you about that part. I asked you about American involvement in the coup.
If it had happened without our assistance, that would have been just one of those things in the world that you can’t control. But it didn’t.
That was the motivation for the Nixon administration hating him. But as we’ve seen in the last 50 years, the US can’t just depose someone by wanting it to be so. We could have avoid war in Iraq if that was the case.
The problem with Allende is that he had no respect for rule of law and considered himself to be the only legitimate elected official. Never mind that pesky legislature.
Supporting the overthrow of Allende was the right thing to do, and it would have happened in any case. He was one of those wannabe dictators who failed because he was too much of an asshole to abide by democratic norms but not ruthless enough to crush his enemies.
Supporting Pinochet long after it became clear that he wasn’t going to restore democracy anytime soon was the wrong thing to do.
In 2008, Barack Obama. In 2016, she has to use that ultra conservative style and beat two opponents: First, a competitor to her left, then a probably young Republican. Playing it safe won’t be helpful in a campaign where voters will probably be looking for a change. Historically, only two two-term Presidents in the post-war era have seen their successor from their party win the popular vote: Reagan and Clinton, and both had approval ratings in the 60s when they left office. It’s hard to see how two more years of an incumbent in the low 40s helps Hillary Clinton unless she aggressively moves to differentiate herself.
And your motivation for calling it the right thing to do.
Yes, we pretty much have been able to do so.
As you know, Cheney and Bush didn’t want to avoid war in Iraq.
But we did?:rolleyes:
Getting elected does tend to give one that feeling.
Says the guy who applauded foreign intervention and support of a murdering dictatorship. Honestly, listen to yourself sometime.
Yes, military dictatorships at the time were well known for their interest in restoring democracy, weren’t they?
You know better than all of this.
What’s his name?
Jindal, Walker, Rubio, Paul.
And first she has to get past a candidate who you’ll like better in the primaries. And perhaps this time assemble a campaign staff that can work together. If she fails to do that a second time she’ll lose no matter what the trial heat polls say right now.
On what planet?
Someone has to win the GOP nomination. And history says the GOP candidate will be the favorite unless Obama can salvage his Presidency.
Oh, yes, please! Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good Pantheist, but if you could just give me this sign…
Careful what you wish for. Be honest now, weren’t you praying that that idiot GWB would get the nomination over McCain?
If GWB can tie Al Gore, Bobby Jindal can beat Hillary Clinton.
Just like last time, right? 
BTW, Bush wasn’t eligible in 2008. That’s what let McCain run. You might reread the Constitution. And GWB fell a half million or so short of Gore. You could look that up, too.
Care to continue your defense of our murderous, democracy-destroying intervention in Chile?
There was no intervention. We supported the coup, but we didn’t make the coup happen. Plus Allende had already destroyed Chilean democracy.
By getting elected?
What a hell of an excuse to dream up. You *ought *to be ashamed of yourself.
Allende destroyed Chilean democracy by not enforcing the law or the constitution and by disregarding acts of the legislature and rulings of the judicial branch.
The Chamber was elected too, and had just as much democratic legitimacy.
As for US involvement, from your link:
**
Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was.[27]
There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. Rather the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it.[**And the Nixon Administration was the proper judges of that, not the Chilean people? And that a military dictatorship would fix it? What an odd concept of democracy you have!
Keep reading. Click a link or two. Learn. Even what you’ve quoted tells the basics - that the US quietly (of course) instigated the coup. Thousands died, many thousands more were imprisoned and tortured because of it. Because of us.
The Nixon administration didn’t make the choice. The Chamber did. They called on the military to restore order.
Let us know when you’ve finished reading your links.
Newsflash: We could have avoided war in Iraq, period.
The US instigated the Chamber to call on the military to restore order?