More Pinochet and Some Young Nazi Video [Updated] [And Re-Updated]
Given my personal connection to it, I’ve decided to stick with the Pinochet story for at least one more day.If you’re just tuning in you should check out the ample coverage in the post below this one.
By the time you read this, the old boy should be safely bottled up in a jar of ashes somewhere, his military funeral now concluded.
The Chilean civilian government of Christian Democrats and Socialists are a notoriously weak lot. So while President Bachelet did deny Pinochet a state funeral, she wimped out and sent her defense minister to attend the show. Once she arrived, however, Minister Vivianne Blanlot was roundly booed by the assembled mourners.
This should surprise no one, especially the Minister, as what would you expect from a group of assembled fascists? And what couthness, no? So overwhelmed with grief over the dead dictator you still have the energy to boo your political opponents?
The current army chief, Gen. Oscar Izurieta, speaking the mealy-mouth sort of stuff we expect from Chilean officials asked Chileans “to let history make a balanced and fair judgment” of the dead dictator. Maybe Fox News could send a special investigative team to see if his victims were reallly murdered or were instead just part of a whining culture of victimology.
Then again, we don’t have to go to the extremes of Fox News it’s enough to daintily pick through the Washington Post to find some temporizing mush about the legacy of Pinochet. Pam Constable, who ought to know better, offers a torturously “balanced” assessment of the General, wanting us to believe he was basically a good and honest guy, a doting grandfather, always motivated by the best of patriotic intentions, he just got carried away by power and…oh…yes… he did steal $27 million and rip out the bowels of a few of his opponents. But he meant well.
Coming soon in the Post a rousing investigative feature: “A half century after the death of Hitler, Germans now realize that while guilty of genocide, the often reviled and mustachioed Bavarian leader also laid down the foundations for one of the world’smost powerful and vibrant market economies.”
Over at Obsidian Wings there’s a rather graphic reminder o why some, unlike Ms. Constable, don’t really need to spend that much time pondering Pinochet’s mutli-faceted legacy. We revisit the story of Carmen Gloria Quintana, who as a 19 year old student in 1986, was kidnapped by Pinochet’s troops, taken to a remote location, beaten, doused with gasoline and set afire. (No doubt in some odd way opening up new avenues of Chilean trade and prosperity). She’s still alive to tell her story, fortunately.
Meanwhile, from Santiago comes some pithy eyewitness blogging from Chileno. Our fearless correspondent swallowed hard and embedded himself in one of the pro-Pinochet marches snaking through Santiago. Been there and done that, and it never ceases to amaze — and frighten. Read his accounts.
Chileno also clarifies a nagging mystery that developed yesterday when, in the post below, I published a photo of three young people giving the Nazi salute over Pinochet’s open casket. Several readers emailed me to ask if the pic was real, was it photoshopped, were the kids perhaps mocking the Old Nazi.
Apparently no to all the above. Chileno provides us with a video of these same Young Nazis holding their own sort of sad Nuremberg street rally for Pinochet. Like most card-carrying fascists, they look both stupid and dangerous.
UPDATE: My long time pal and frequent blog commenter, Tim Frasca, who spent 18 years living in Chile, overlapping much of the Pinochet Dictatorship, also got ticked off by Pam Constable’s yes/but piece on Pinochet. I’ve decided to post below his extended thoughts. They are quite valuable at a time when the media has decided to cover Pinochet as a guy with a “mixed” legacy:
Pinochet’s death is one of those emblematic moments in which “moderate,†centrist positions burst forth in full flower. I’m all for prudence, compromise and playing well with others, but sometimes those who dash toward the middle sidestep the difficulties of a moral stand. Pamela Constable’s Washington Post memoir entitled, “The Strongman Who Tore Apart His Country,†trashes Pinochet with a trowel but promptly backs away by insisting that Pinochet “genuinely believed†he was doing the right thing by slaughtering unarmed civilians, establishing torture dungeons and terrorizing the populace.How does she know that? And anyway, who cares? Since when is sincerity a political criterion? Does anyone try to get into Joe Stalin’s mind and wonder if he was faithful to his sense of a “grim dutyâ€? “Hitler was sincere,†my friend Gabrielle used to say while describing her escape from the Nazis at age 14. “So what?â€
To argue that Pinochet had a belief system that went beyond the accumulation of power, wealth and fawning retainers suggests a grudging respect for his opus as well—far from a rarity in journo-pundit-think tank circles. The figure of the bad-but-sincere “man with a mission†and a “sacred, patriotic calling†is the construct of those who are appalled by the methods but far from displeased with the results. Constable reiterates that Pinochet was “convinced†that he had saved the country from becoming another Cuba. Is she?
I should clarify that I occasionally shared a dinner table or a taxi with Pamela during her year in Santiago and wonder if her indulgent tendencies spring from her deep identification with U.S. interests. She always discussed U.S. policy in the first person: “we†should do this or that, she would say, when referring to what action the Reagan or Bush Administration was considering. Of course, at that time even Reagan’s advisors were eager to be rid of Pinochet, who had outlived his usefulness, unlike the Salvadoran fascists who were sincerely engaged in massacring peasants with enthusiastic support from Washington.
Constable acknowledges that Pinochet was a tyrant and an embezzler, vain and cruel. She savages him for exacerbating the divisions in Chilean society. Yet she can’t help salvaging him as well as some kind of misguided creep who nevertheless put Chile on the path of growth. Fine, she’s entitled to her opinion—let’s just insist she cop to being lukewarm about his performance and his legacy despite his obvious crimes and leave it at that. But enough about his supposed sincerity: that’s an insult to his victims.
***Update: Here’s a new report from gimlet-eyed Tomas Dinges down in Santiago, Fear and loathing among the riled up Pinochetistas. It’s dirty work, but someone’s gotta do it.
****Update: Some new, related links:
– My friend Ariel Dorfman weighs in with his usual style and insight.
– The BBC has put up a good photo album of today’s events, including the anti-Pinochet rally in front of La Moneda palace.
– The Pinochet Precedent and why Don Rumsfeld should pay attention.
– Amnesty International provides a timeline on prosecution of Pinochet’s crimes.
– And why not? A 208-photo slide show of the real, non-miracle, Chile from one its finest photographers, Marcelo Montesino.
– And as a grand finale. Audio of the last speech of Salvador Allende, delivered as Pinochet’s forces launched their coup. Unfortunately, I heard it live.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
History’s judgement will not be kind to the general. The means always become the ends. Torture, rape and barbaric murder are NEVER justified means for accomplishing ANYTHING! How sad and painful it is that the human family can still be so confused as to praise this man and his henchmen as honorable and good people. I wonder if his supporters would say the same had they or their friends or family members been on the receiving end of such atrocities. Repetition of lies and fabrications, no matter how strident and insistent, does not make them true. Witness the debacle today in the Middle East.
May the democratic tradition of the Chilean people be allowed once again to flourish. May the shame and embarrassment of America’s complicity in Pinochet’s crimes be assuaged by the forgiveness of the people of Chile. Governments often do much harm in the name of their people. The populace often has no recourse other than feeble protestations. One can only hope that our species evolves to a higher consciousness that makes this sort of letter unnecessary. Peace to the human family.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Thank God Arturo Valenzuela co-wrote that book.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I thought it might be useful to mention someone else who died this weekend – Jean Kirkpatrick. She was the UN Ambassador who made the distinction between “Authoritarian” and “Totalitarian” governments saying the former could change but not the latter. For her Piniochet and Galtieri (of Argentina) were “Authoritarian” while the USSR was ruled by “Totalitarians.” Alas, for her view (as in so much else), Gorbachev came along and messed that up. Anyone here want to guess at what his Obits will read?
Kirkpatrick of course was an early neocon who applauded the dictators of South America as being the bulwark against those nasty totalitarian commies. When Galtieri, to distract the people of Argintina from his miserable economic performance, invaded the Falklands (or Malvinas for those keeping score) she wanted to side with the boys from Buenos Aires. But Reagan sided with Maggie Thatcher in the fight of two bald men over a comb – as Borges put it. Thatcher also got help from Pinochet and she remained loyal to the end to the Chilean Strongman. There is an excellent piece on the Thatcher/Kirkpatrick/Galtieri/Pinochet connection on Ian Williams’
And let us not forget Milton Friedman who was laid to rest after a lifetime of harm. He taught us that “Free Markets” require unfree people. Look at the Chilean experiment as we’ve been doing here.
So let us consider the triumvirate of Pinochet, Kirkpatrick, and Friedman. And let us toss in Nixon and Kissinger. Who was the worst? The thug or his apologists. And maybe that is why so few people give a damn when Condi Rice and Eliot Abrams denounce Chavez or Ortega. Something about pots and kettles I think.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
RLC: You shouldnt give a dman when Rice and Abrams denounce Chavez or Ortega. You should give a damn when people like I do. Stop slipping the knot of a universal and not double standard for decency and democracy.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Trouble is Marc as much as I respect your knowlege of the area you are not one of the Great and the Good whose opinions mold the received wisdom in Washington. Abrams and Rice are. See today’s WaPo editorial absolving Pinochet because he did such wonders for the economy. The people who don’t give a damn are those in other countries who probably don’t make distinctions between what Americans have to say since our leadership, to put it mildly, have made us the most feared nation on earth – even in the UK – and the country considered the greatest threat to peace.
And my point on Chavez is simple. He has the lession of Arbenez, Mossadegh, and Allende in front of him as well as the Contra war. He would be a fool to ignore that. And the lession is never allow the bastards a chance to grind you down. Sorry but I think that makes sense even if it may restrict democratic forces in the area but we know who to blame. And it ain’t a guy sitting in Caracas.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
But, in the spirit of the season I want to be fair and balanced. And those that want a positive view of Pinochet’s legacy are invited to go to NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE where people like Otto Reich of the “Foundation for the Promotion of Democracy” will tell you why Ol’Agusto was a “Tragic Figure.”
December 12th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
RLC: I swear on my recently deceased father;s soul that this will be the very last time I ever engage you on Chavez (I promise, Dad). I suppose if your goal is keeping a regime, or an individual power you can argue that, at least in the short run, ur better off curtailing democracy and opposition.
But is that ur goal? We’re supposed to worry if Hugo Chavez can hang onto power in the face of Washington? Pardon me, but I thought the goal was actually building a better life for Venezuelans which INCLUDES more, not less, democrcay.
The “lessons” of Arbenz, Mossadegh and especially Allende teach us nothing about the vallue of overstepping democracy. They were not overthrown because the allowed opposition. They were overthrow because they were weaker than the forces that confonted them! None of them would have been stronger or better off by being more authoritarian. It’s non sequitor.
For all of your lessons about Arbenz, we have the equally or more tragic lesson of Castro. His enemies are and were real. But his revolution is destined for the dustbin precisely because of its authoritarian nature. I assure you that the Capitalist Imperialist State Department will be around long, long after the remnants of Cuban socialism will have crumbled.
Any government that is confronted by an external enemy and that cant trust its own people to support it or defend it isnt worth defending. It’s about that simple.
I however will be looking for your comments sometime in the very near future when more likely than not the Peoples Revolutionary Army will be called out against an unruly Cuban people. Their commanders will say the same you have just said in your post: that the rioters in the streets are agents of foreign imperialism,that the Cuban state has learned the lessons of Arbenz, and then they will open fire.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Pinochet Roundup – And Some Mythbusting…
Marc Cooper has thoughts here and here that you should not miss. Tomas Dinges (just added to the blogroll) e-mailed about these two posts regarding events in Chile. Marc tips me to this post by a blogger in Chile who…
December 12th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Esto a veces duele ,Marc. All these fucking fascists, many of whom work with my relatives . I hope you keep up the Chile posts, revisit them every now and then.
Did you compare the LA Times ( Otis Chandler lives?! ) obituary on Pinochet vs. the pathetic, capitalist establishment US imperial NYT and WA Post gloss-over jobs?
BIG difference! Kudos to Sebastian Rotella and Patrick J. McDonnell for their harsh ( ballsy?) words on the creep Augusto that mention the US role in his dictatorship.
Also, thanks for the Tomas Dinges (whoever he is) link. The guy has some 500 photos of real Chileans and some of the cordillera, the desert North, the wet South.
Beautiful stuff to see for a gringoficado chileno like me who has only been there for 40 days total in the past 33 years.
Desert, snow, trees, cities… and hope for the future.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 2,920 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
CLEMENS, Thomas W., 37, Staff Sgt., Army; Leitchfield, Ky.; Second Battalion, 123rd Armor.
KRISSOF, Nathan M., 25, First Lt., Marines; Reno, Nev.; Third Marine Division.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:06 am
Marc,
Pinochet is roasing in hell for his atrocities. So don’t try to paint what I say as support for him. People like you always do that in order to DISTRACT from the fact that your own support for Marxist thugs.
Yes, Pinochet was a monster. But it took a monster to fix the mess created by the KGB stooge Allende. Allende trashed the Chilean constitution and wrecked the economy. He used constitutional means to destroy constitutional rule.
If not for Allende and his groupies such as yourself, Pinochet would NEVER have existed. So in some small way, the Chilean blood is on your hands too.
The crimes of Pinochet are barely a rounding error in comparison the crimes of Marxist dictators. And yet leftists can barely muster a peep against these other monsters.
The left’s outrage over Pinochet cannot be explained by his atrocities. You guys are not against killing and torture. It only depends WHO is doing the killing and torture. Killing and torture to achieve forced “equality” is apparently OK with you guys.
The anti-Pinochet vitriol of the left is driven by two things. First, he proved all your theories wrong. Second, you guys created him. But thou does protest too much.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:13 am
If Jeanne Kirkpatrick was a neocon, the neocon line has changed.
Kirkpatrick was not an advocate of overthrowing what she called “authoritarian” régimes in the name of an abstraction called democracy. The neo-Wilsonian kind of neoconservative advocates intervention in the name of making the world (or at least one or another supposedly benighted country) safe for “democracy.” Sharansky’s book is a manifesto for this sort of thing.
Democracy is overrated. I think Kirkpatrick knew that.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:35 am
And my point on Chavez is simple. He has the lession of Arbenez, Mossadegh, and Allende in front of him as well as the Contra war. He would be a fool to ignore that. And the lession is never allow the bastards a chance to grind you down. Sorry but I think that makes sense even if it may restrict democratic forces in the area but we know who to blame. And it ain’t a guy sitting in Caracas.
My point is that those three were removed from power during the Cold war: the first two 50 years ago, the last 30 years ago.
The question was that with the Soviet Union gone, would Western Imperialism/Capitalism bare its fangs and install Pinochets everywhere? The answer is no (in fact it restored the majority Shiites to power in Iraq). Maybe Chavez is allowed to remain b/c there’s no Soviet Union to bakc him? Of course there isn’t a “Capitalist Utopia” and progress is often in spite of the hyperpower.
These line from Isabel Allende stuck with me. They’re why one shouldn’t speak in euphemistic terms of dictators like Pinochet, Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc.
“Friends and acquaintances began to disappear; some returned after weeks of absence, with the eyes of madmen and signs of torture. Many sought refuge in other countries. In the beginning, Mexico, Germany, France, Canada, Spain and other countries took them in, but after a while, they had to call a halt because thousands of other Latin American exiles were being added to the waves of Chileans.”
Neoliberalism doesn’t require this, but it’s association with it doesn’t speak well.
And a excerpt from Marc’s book courtesy the Baffler!
http://www.thebaffler.com/cooperexcerpt.html
what a nightmare.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:38 am
“The left’s outrage over Pinochet cannot be explained by his atrocities. You guys are not against killing and torture. It only depends WHO is doing the killing and torture. Killing and torture to achieve forced “equality†is apparently OK with you guys.”
You know, this kind of thing would make me mad if it were not so laughable.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:46 am
I don’t think it was a wimpy move at all for Blanlot to attend the funeral. As she said in El Mercurio, any high-level military event must be presided by the Defense Minister. This is crucial for civilian control of the military. Marc, you yourself have said that the draft would be a major step towards re-nationalizing the U.S. Armed Forces, preventing them from developing into a separate caste alien to the rest of society. So, you understand the issue: the military should not be an autonomous sector of society. In Latin America, with its tradition of military “fueros” and coups, it’s essential that a gutsy civil servant be there at the military funeral for a deceased Army chief, especially one who overthrew the civilian government which appointed him to that post. She was booed, it’s true: as you point out in your note, it belied the “grief” of these very partisan mourners. The Army does not belong to those cuicas of Las Condes, but to the people of La Legua who elected the Concertacion.
The wierd thing is that when Gen. Prats had to resign in 1973 when his position became untenable, he and Allende both picked Pinochet as the one general amongst the entire officer corps who could be counted on to remain loyal to the Constitution…
December 13th, 2006 at 9:49 am
HA – “You guys are not against killing and torture. It only depends WHO is doing the killing and torture.”
There’s not much to say in response to HA other than “You’re showing yourself as a drooling, dishonest moron. If your best offering is simply exposing your ass, do it on some other blog…”
PS: If you’re truly lonely and desperate to argue politics on the internet, here are a couple of folks you could get in touch with who might find your critical commentary on double standards regarding torture and killing useful…
http://rwor.org/avakian/index.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/
December 13th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
GOM – apparently Kirkpatrick thought Iraq was folly and had little respect left for her clique’s successors and offspring like Junior Kristol.
Since I don’t consider a little humor and reflection on human foibles, ironies of family and the Inherent Weirdness of the Super-Sized Enchilda inappropriate in the face of death anymore than in life, I offer this link to a website on the late Ambassador’s son, the guru formerly known as Stuart. Who’da thunk ????
http://www.aroter.org/eng/images/nyingma/trx_portrait
Also, on topic, there’s this Pinochet symposium brought to you by the Respectable Right at National Review, a freedom-loving journal of opinion that, coincidentally, had an editor who also opined Generalissimo Franco was a great man who’d saved his country back in the day. (Presumabley, in the nuanced, optimistic and ever-generous perspective of the Buckley family, even the Wehrmacht was capable of great good under proper circumstances.)
http://tinyurl.com/yxhgk2
December 13th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
URL correction for Stuart Kirkpatrick…
http://www.aroter.org/eng/images/nyingma/trx_portrait.htm
December 13th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Here’s the Red State Sons thoughts
“Jeane Kirkpatrick, who loved Pinochet and spoke warmly of him while in Santiago, was further up the policy ladder than the Chilean dictator, but shared many of his passions. One in particular, death squads. As Reagan’s UN Ambassador, Kirkpatrick defended that administration’s funding and training of state terrorists throughout Latin America, most enthusiastically in El Salvador, where early on Kirkpatrick dismissed claims that Maryknoll nuns who were raped and butchered by the Salvadoran National Guard in 1980 were “victims.” As she put it, “The nuns were not just nuns, they were political activists, and we should be very clear about that.†Of course. And in an emerging, Western-style democracy, political activists, especially those who work with the poor, are legitimate targets for state violence, a policy that Kirkpatrick never tired of championing.
Still, as much as Kirkpatrick enjoyed watching powerless people being shot in the head or hacked to death with machetes and dumped into rivers or mass graves, she never got to kill any of her enemies herself. An imperial perk, as we know. But still, how gung ho would Kirkpatrick remain if she were given a rifle at, say, El Mozote, and encouraged to murder with impunity? Something tells me that she would balk at direct engagement. If true, then Kirkpatrick was more hypocritical than someone like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who at least had the honesty to personally behead a given captive. But then, when you do your own killing, it cuts down on the number of dismembered bodies needed to make the political statement you wish to make. In that sense, Kirkpatrick’s rhetorical support for mass murder and torture was more constructive, as it was part of a larger effort to legitimize the terrorist policy of the Reagan White House. What good would Kirkpatrick be to her bosses if her precious time was taken up with pumping bullets into peasants’ brains? This is why larger, more successful terrorist operations hire out.
There are those, primarily on the left, who are celebrating the passing of these two ghouls. In a way, it’s understandable; in some instances, fitting. But I rarely, if ever, feel any joy when criminals like Pinochet and Kirkpatrick die. Yes, they’ve met their maker, but then, we all do, eventually. And once they’re gone, there are many others who eagerly replace them, keeping the system of mass killing for greed and geopolitical power humming along. When the system itself dies, then perhaps I’ll crack a smile and pop a cork — assuming it hasn’t laid waste to the world around us before it finally expires.”
December 13th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Once she arrived, however, Minister Vivianne Blanlot was roundly booed by the assembled mourners.
They politicized a funeral? I’m sorry, but that’s over the line. I’m sure all the right-wing bloggers who were incensed about Paul Wellstone’s memorial service will find this equally appalling, if not moreso.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
No more on Chavez Marc. Just thought it possible that the opposition to him was rather similiar to the people yelling “Viva Pinochet” at his burial the other day. I don’t doubt the Cuban Military will be harsh. So were Saddam’s forces. Well we sure brought Democracy there didn’t we? And Marc, when Castro goes don’t you think a lot of very slimey people in Miami are going to discover that “Their” country calls them back? Achmed Chalibi lives!
There is a basic principle in the Law of Equity. It says that those seeking injunctive relief must come to the court with clean hands. You are right, of course, about democratic virtue but our country is not. And when it comes to events South of the border our hands – and those of our allies (or stooges if you will) – are very dirty indeed.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
And here is something else to consider:
Right now there is probably no world leader with a higher domestic approval rating than Vladimir Putin. Polls show his numbers in the seventies or hight. I don’t doubt that he is anti-democratic and I would further say that he is probably more “Authoritarian” than Hugo Chavez. So why would the Russian people – well educated, sophisticated, and no fans of the old Communist Regime (as the showing of the CPUSSR as a party in elections demonstrates) so like him?
Well times are better. High oil prices have led to an economic boom. But it is more than that. Putin took on the oligarchs who had mad the Russian economy a kleptocracy and siphoned billions off to foreign banks. And he stood up to the West. Which had been discredited.
Remember “Shock Therapy” was used there as well. And after the fall Russia was invaded by Heritage Foundation types and Chicago boys – many fresh from their “triumph” in Chile and in Poland. And the US and Western Europe gave uncritical support to Yeltsin. When he bombarded the first elected Duma in Russian History – see Stephen Cohen’s work – we said he had no choice and applauded his “resolve.” We did nothing as allowed state assets to be plundered by the new Nomenklatura.
Now the Russians say that no one but Russians can own the countrie’s patrimony. Several of the oligarchs are in jail and their assets seized and it wasn’t particularly fastididious or considerate of their rights as the accused. And the Russian people love it! Putin controls the broadcast media and, as rexcent event show, may be behind some assanination of reporters and whistleblowers. I don’t think Chavez has done that yet.
I hear some qualms here but not much from the Administration. And besides the boy emperor and his cronies are not good advertisements for an open society anyway.
Do I support Putin? No. No more than I support Chavez. But I think I have some understanding why both have loyal constituencies and why its not as simple as being pro-democratic. There’s that terrible thing called history – the nightmare we’re still in.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Among those who filed by while Pinochet’s body was on display was Gen. Prats’ grandson, who spat on it. Somebody had to.
(He was detained, and I’m sure will be quite willing to pay whatever is the penalty.)
December 13th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Despite all the divisions, it seems Chile has mostly moved on, and at least institutionally figured out how to deal with things. Pinochet’s grandson who praised his grandfather’s triumph over marxism and criticized the judges who sought to prosecute him was demoted from his position as a result. The army knows that it is to stay away from politics. While Pinochet’s larger economic and human rights legacy will continue to be debated, Chile has at least figured out some basics in democracy and I doubt its democratic pedigree will again be defiled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301299.html
December 15th, 2006 at 6:44 am
marc, correct me if i’m wrong (i like you am married to a chilean who thank god is anti fascism), but isn’t that the military salute? since the chilean army is prussian in its heritage as the german army…so just wondering.
i usually don’t agree with you on many fronts since i am of a center-right tendency, but i agree with you on pinocho. i have to say that i support the coup, in the sense of deposing a government that was becoming increasingly anti democratic (i’m sorry i don’t like allende either) and that was not ruling with the majority – but democratic elections should’ve been held and democracy restored.
as a cuban-american i find a portion of my community to hold a double standard of hating castro while excusing pinocho b/c of his economic policies. i find this beyond appalling. thanks for your posts on this since i didn’t find many that weren’t somehow a yes/but write up.
as for the booting of his grandson, my spouse tells me that the military in chile is not permitted to publicly declare political opinions – just a reminder for me of what a great and free nation we live under.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
[...] Cooper, former translator for Salvador Allende, also blogged Pinochet’s death and pointed to my video to corroborate the veracity of another nazi photo circulating at the time, [...]
February 28th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
The crimes of Pinochet are barely a rounding error in comparison the crimes of Marxist dictators. And yet leftists can barely muster a peep against these other monsters.