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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301299.html

(He was detained, and I’m sure will be quite willing to pay whatever is the penalty.)

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

http://www.aroter.org/eng/images/nyingma/trx_portrait.htm

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

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/

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…

You know, this kind of thing would make me mad if it were not so laughable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.”