By now everyone has seen Sr. Chávez’s speech at the UN. Strangely there is no thread on it.
Of course it could be because the question that faces this house is simply, “Is President Hugo Chávez whacked or simply off his nut?”
He has ruined his bid to get on the Security Council, he has freaked out lots of folks who had been (or could have been) his allies, he has made himself look like an ass.
DOes anyone want to stand up for the man and his weird speech?
It was nice to see him expose himself in such a manner, wasn’t it?
It might have played well back home, but it didn’t do his reputation as a sober, serious statesman any good.
Speech in question:
There is more…enjoy.
I’m not going to defend the man myself…I think he’s a loon. I’m amused that all these 3rd world countries that are supposedly shaking in their boots in fear of an imminent US attack feel so free in calling us all manner of names and attacking Bush though. Rather ironic IMHO.
I WILL say though, that from H.C.'s perspective (and really every country NOT on the UNSC), the UN is certainly defective…and some of his points wrt THAT are valid (though of course over the top as is the man’s style). I also think the UN is deeply flawed and can see why countries not in the inner circle would feel that way too.
Other than that I thought the speech nothing but bread and circus’s for good ole Hugo’s target masses…just a lot of hot air and bullshit.
-XT
Transcript of Chavez’s speech here
Transcript of Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ SOTU here
Chavez’s speech flows better. Of course, I’ll admit to a weakness for big words like ‘hegemony’, ‘rostrum’, or ‘Chomsky’. Hitchcock references are a plus too.
He sounded like a clown.
He showed his ass. Truly unfortunate, because there are so many things to be said against Bush fils.
It appears, though, that Sr Chavez is not the one to say them.
Seemed like a fine rhetorical rant to me. Certainly no more whacked than ‘Axis of Evil’ and all that other Bush nonsense. The seat is his.
I got a hundred Saudi riyals that says no way.
Just out of curiosity, why was Bush’s Axis of Evil rhetoric non-sense while Hugo’s rant fine rhetoric? Aside from the fact that Bush can’t speak and Hugo can of course? Based on the subject and content alone, and leaving aside obvious prejudice, what makes Hugo’s message worth while, while Bush’s was non-sense? I’m curious.
-XT
It certainly wasn’t the high road to take, diplomatically. Not that Bush was on the high road himself. The speech did more to drag Chavez down to Bush’s level then it did to hurt Bush. But everybody wins- back home he’s seen as standing up to the US. Anti-Bush Americans can snicker at the punchlines. Pro-Bush Americans can point to it as a speech from the loony bin. In two weeks, it will be forgotten.
What did Chavez say that was so terrible? I’m having a hard time finding anything to disagree with. The “sulfur” line was outstanding.
I’m sure you know that by now, but that was last year’s speech.
Like minds think alike? Why am I unsurprised? 
-XT
The perennial question with Chávez isn’t “Is he whacked?” but rather “How whacked is he today?” The man is more baked than vanful of Deadheads.
It’s not like we–that is to say, Americans–can claim the high ground here, though. Bush’s obsession with the word “evil” (must have been on his Word of the Day calender that day) is only slightly less disturbing than his religious fundamentalism. But I still say that it’ll be hard to top Reagan for sheer disassociation with reality. That dude was whack in a way Zaphod Beeblebrox could only hope to approximate.
Stranger
What, a truly democratic & meaningful UN without veto for the big boys? The man’s obviously insane…
Yes, my bad. Just did a quick google search and that popped up. I had read the speech yesterday in a news article but couldn’t find that one. Sorry.
-XT
If that were all he had to say I’d agree with him.
-XT
Kudos to Chavez! Excellent and truthful speech!
::::standing O:::::
What’s he saying that’s so crazy exactly? He’s just using a speaking that’s a bit more passionately that we in the West are accustomed to. That doesn’t automatically make him a loon. The man’s a Venezuelan politician whose fiery personality is what wins him votes.
And the bit about sulphur was obviously a conscious nod toward the current happenings about Iran (where the term “the great Satan” originates). A show of support, though unwise from a public relations point of view since it will be the only thing about the speech that people remember. I don’t think he literally belives GWB to be the actual Christian devil. Nothing about Chavez suggests the delusional, he just believes strongly in the things he says. His main crime seems to be that he’s the democratically elected leader of a South American country and not entirely a tool of the United States.
To Chavez the man, the jury is out. Far too many times have we seen men ride a wave of populist ardor to positions of power, and then become corrupted by that power into despotism. A lot remains to be revealed, and I withold judgement. There is a lot about this man that reminds of Peron, and that ain’t good.
As to Chavez the symbol: thats another matter. From what I’ve seen of the “outakes”, it sure looks as though he had a largely sympathetic audience. Laughed at this jokes, relaxed, leaning back. Compare with Bush’s speech: stiff, wooden, diplomatic faces revealing nothing. The kind of face you wear when being harangued by the guy with the biggest stick in the world, talking as loud as he fucking well pleases.
We demand that the UN regard our enemies as theirs (and well they might!) But our every action carries a message of scorn and derision. I suspect that this is not how you win friends and influence nations. We demand that they cloak our military adventures with thier legitimacy, as if it were ours. We send them John Bolton, as clear a gesture of contempt as we might muster, a man with all the diplomatic skills of a crack-addled pit bull.
And then we declare that if they don’t love us for it, there’s something wrong with them!