"Pendejo"
I've been waiting a long time to write something in which I could squeeze the words Hugo Chavez and pendejo into the same sentence.
Now thanks to the latest outburst from El Companero Presidente, I can. The Spanish word pendejo doesn't have an exact translation into English. The most literal version would be "ass hair." The most colloquial is "asshole."
Which is what the blustering Chavez has now called the Chilean Secretary General of the Organization of American States. Just what provoked the gutter-level epithet from Chavez? Seems like the OAS chief had the temerity to criticize Chavez for shutting down an opposition radio station.
Anyone who swears himself into office under a giant portrait of himself, as seen above, is usually not the type to brook criticism from mere mortals.
Indeed, I think the 25 foot high portrait of Chavez is one of those little details that tell you a much larger story.
Proclaiming that he's going full speed ahead with a "socialist" transformation of Venezuela, Chavez has announced the nationalization of a number of strategic telecom utilities. I put the word "socialist" in quotes because there is no socialism without democracy and the fact is that even though Chavez has been duly elected he now seems intent on restricting rather than expanding democracy. Apart from silencing the opposition radio station, he also announced this week that he will ask (and get) special powers from congress to pass laws by presidential decree. He's moving to consolidate the ruling coailition of parties into a single unified party, and he's promoted a pack of loyalist cronies to key positions in the state.
There's nothing cute about a national leader who has so lowered the political discourse. His name calling of Latin America's chief diplomat confirms that Chavez is himself an intellectual thug. Or, if you prefer, a pendejo.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:06 am
TV station, not radio.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:36 am
What’s amazing about all this is that Insulza was the candidate that Chavez was pushing for to be OAS SG. I guess he was expecting a rubber stamp.
Be careful what you wish for . . .
January 10th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Which president of the US, or any country for that matter, would have allowed a TV outlet that supported a coup to continue broadcasting - esp. during a subsequent campaign for re-election? Or allowed persons who actively participated in the coup, to run against him for president?
Would Allende, if he had survived?
January 10th, 2007 at 8:18 am
“Would Allende, if he had survived?”
You don’t understand. Marc doesn’t mind a socialist government being overthrown as long as it passes his litmus test. If Chilean children spent a decade suffering from Pinochet’s austerity, that’s the price that has to be paid for meeting the high ideals of American Junior High School social studies classes.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I’m not gonna make the point that Ed just made because I disagree with it, despite my support of Chavez. It is a pendejo move to shut down any nasty speech - including holocaust deniers and racists at Venezuelan tv networks.. At the same time, this is widely decontextualized, as per usual when this topic is broached - and far less censorial than the EU, for example.
I think the nationalizations and wide popularity of Chavez shows there is democracy and (limited) socialism in Venezuela. It was a pendejo move (known for quite some time I was wondering when MC would pick up on it) but sholdn’t be blown out of proportion.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Since my comment is “on moderation” I’ll just say simply, yes, it is a pendejo move, no one should be censored Its also a less censorial move than most of the EU, etc. Coup-monging would get a treason charge, not censorship in USA.
Cute Petkoff quote opposing nationalizations. Real socialist he is.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Test….am I being shut down like a Venezuelan TV station?
January 10th, 2007 at 8:53 am
OK…I’m not - in moderation I wrote: “I’m not gonna make the point that Ed just made because I disagree with it, despite my support of Chavez. It is a pendejo move to shut down any nasty speech, even that of people trying to overthrow your system of governance, something that would get a treason charge in US and A.
At the same time, this is widely decontextualized, as per usual when this topic is broached - and far less censorial than the EU, for example.
I think the nationalizations and wide popularity of Chavez shows there is democracy and (limited but more) socialism in Venezuela. It was a pendejo move (known for quite some time I was wondering when MC would pick up on it) but sholdn’t be blown out of proportion. “
January 10th, 2007 at 10:00 am
desde la “p” hasta la “o”
January 10th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“Which president of the US, or any country for that matter, would have allowed a TV outlet that supported a coup to continue broadcasting - esp. during a subsequent campaign for re-election?”
Bill Clinton?
January 10th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Cooper = CIA
January 10th, 2007 at 11:15 am
“Chavez is himself an intellectual thug. Or, if you prefer, a pendejo. ”
Or, if you prefer, a fascist.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:18 am
“Which president of the US … would have allowed a TV outlet that supported a coup to continue broadcasting - esp. during a subsequent campaign for re-election? Or allowed persons who actively participated in the coup, to run against him for president?”
Any president of the US. Read the First Amendment. It’s a marketplace of ideas out there on the ground in the US of A, even if the president — whoever he or she might be — doesn’t like some of the ideas.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:48 am
By all means lets have another weary discussion of Hugo Chavez. I mean its not like he’s invading other countries or violating the UN Charter or International Law. And he isn’t “Rendering” anyone. But he’s not nice to the media in his country and does not play well with others - particularly those that want to overthrow him via coups. Yeah let’s waste time blasting him.
Meanwhile I suppose we could talk about Arnold’s Health Care Plan that might affect some of us here.
Nope. Let’s solve the world’s problems first.
Sigh!
January 10th, 2007 at 11:50 am
And while the President may not shut down media he doesn’t like its only because he lacks the power that the Mouse has. Or see what Disney did to the blogger that dared to criticize some ABC radio stations for carrying racist buffoons.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:55 am
PAGINA 12 (of Argentina) interviewed a Chavista government minister who made arguments about the television station that were very reminiscent of the recent U.S. debates over telecoms and the FCC. The fact that the airwaves are a public trust (the FCC licenses are just concessions) is a point which American activists such as Amy Goodman and other Pacifica Radio folks use to argue for pressing the FCC to increase pluralism in broadcast content. In the American case, it was when Michael Powell was holding hearings about national media consolidation (2003 or so), and the activists were pressing for the FCC to block mega-mergers of station owners. In the Venezuelan case, the minister claimed that Chavez’ polices are designed to increase pluralism by allowing the license of a golpista station to expire, not to bring the station under state control, but to offer the license to some other party, a public non-state entity.
The interview is here: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-78519-2007-01-03.html
January 10th, 2007 at 11:56 am
“I put the word ’socialist’ in quotes because there is no socialism without democracy and the fact is that even though Chavez has been duly elected he now seems intent on restricting rather than expanding democracy.”
When has there ever been socialism WITH democracy?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I know everyone wants to talk about Chavez and his cavalier ways but here is a quote from Tony Snow yesterday at the WH Press briefing:
“The President can ignore Congress when it votes the wrong way.”
Sorry, I’ve got more important things on my mind than whether or not you get TV in Caracas!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
From Marc’s article: (Chavez) said one of the proposed constitutional reforms would allow “indefinite re-election” by doing away with presidential term limits that bar him from running again in 2012.
Gee, do you think he has a chance of getting this passed? Why, that could make him like a dictator, even though the elections are “democratically” held.
I’m sure that Jimmy Carter will announce to the world, as he has done before, that future elections in Venezuela are fair–although he disputes those in the U.S. Let’s close our eyes, since Chavez is one of the fellow Bush bashers.
The usual suspects of the left, even as evidenced by some comments above, will avoid disputes about Chavez, while attacking their own President. Just as we’re about to get rid of Castro, the left will have another hero in that region.
So much for freedom and democracy.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Well, perhaps it is a “pendejo” move, something with which I disagree…but who lives better? Working Chileans under neoliberalism, or Working Venezuelans?
Oh, Petkoff seems like a real socialist, in his opposition to nationalizations. A class act that Teodoro, once a guerrila, now a CIA agent.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Hmmm….is Marc trying to make a point shutting down comments from someone who defends Chavez?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Well, perhaps it is a “pendejo†move, something with which I disagree…but who lives better? Working Chileans under neoliberalism, or Working Venezuelans?
Oh, Petkoff seems like a real socialist, in his opposition to nationalizations. A class act that Teodoro, once a guerrila, now a CIA agent.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Howdy Marc — and a belated Happy New Years to all the ‘regulars’ here…
Enjoyed your remarks regarding Chavez, and especially, there’s “no socialism without democracy.”
Hate to start this year off topic, but I finally carved out some time to read Tabio & Marco’s “The Uncomfortable Dead (a novel by four hands)” Loved it. Great recommendation, Marc.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
This is the last thing I’ll say today (do I hear hosannas out there?) about the Chavez matter. I am fully away that this is Marc’s blog and he can cry if wants to about whatever he wants to and if Chavez is bugging him well OK. But Marc likes to remind us all that he is a journalist and I always thought that one of the jobs of a journalist is to prioritize. And, right now, the state of affairs in Venezueala is waydown the list. Speak of “Small far way countries of which we know little” indeed.
Tonight the President will annouince a major escalation. His spokesman said yesterday that he doesn’t give a damn what Congress does if it makes the “wrong” choices. Sounds like he is daring them to cut off funds so he can veto something. Or maybe just shift around accounts. I happen to think that this is the most important issue facing us right now and polls suggests the public does too as all other issues pale in significance right now on the public consciousness. But other issues of import that are in the works now include:
1. Minimum Wage legislation. Senate Republicans say they’ll fillibuster if they don’t get ax breaks for “Small Business”. I say “Bring it On” but what do you think?
2. Dick Durbin introduced a “public Finance for Elections” modeled on Arizona’s law. I can’t think of a more important piece of legislation.
3. Immigration reform is S.5 - the fifth bill the Senate wil;l take up. Presumeably we’ll talk about this when Marc reports on those packers(not the ones in Green Bay).
3. And with the new plan in California and the Prescription drug plan being debated again I think Health Care coverage comes back big.
You can talk about whatever you want Marc. Just some ideas about what really matters but above all IRAQ FIRST.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“Just as we’re about to get rid of Castro, the left will have another hero in that region. ”
Just a bit of hyperbole there, Woody?
January 10th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Which president of the US, or any country for that matter, would have allowed a TV outlet that supported a coup to continue broadcasting - esp. during a subsequent campaign for re-election? Or allowed persons who actively participated in the coup, to run against him for president?
Would Allende, if he had survived?
Actually, the main criticism was that when news of Chavez returning to power came out, the station broadcast reruns of cartoons, etc., rather than report the news.
US presidents do not have the authority to cancel broadcast licenses or deny renewal of one. Thta is a job left up to the FCC and it usually involves a long history of fines and flouting broadcast regulations, or someone filing a petition to deny, a costly and tedious process that usually doesn’t succeed.
Hey Marc, you also haven’t written about Chile’s dilemma with the CODELCO/Military 10% law, the end of ETA’s ceasefire, the proxy war in Somalia and James Brown’s death.
For shame.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Jim, maybe, but consider This, This, and This. Just as Democrats supported the Sandinistas over Reagan and favored Castro to take Elian, they will support Chavez over Bush.
If some think that there are other topics so important that we cannot discuss Chavez, maybe those who lament Iraq will give us some advance wisdom on how to handle a nuclear Iran. Why wait until “Monday morning” to tell us what should be done?
January 10th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Jim H. You just got more of the same.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Didn’t know Steve Largent was a Democrat.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Pendejos and Punheteiros…
I don’t have too much more to add to Hugo Chavez’s latest nastiness that Marc and Boz have already covered, but I would like to point these two facts out: Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the OAS and the…
January 10th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Didn’t know that Joe Lieberman was a Republican. So much for trying to prove a point by pointing out an exception.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
So much for trying to prove a point by making a sweeping generalization.
But that’s standard for someone who has such a piss poor grasp of the facts.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Woody, it would be less of a waste of time discussing heterosexual sex with Richard Simmons than discussing foreign policy with you.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Incidentally, Woody, regarding your remarkably incompetent analysis of John Burn’s NYT article on the “Saddam tapes”, why don’t you check this out. It’s from the era of your GodHead, Ronald Reagan, and shows that the neo-cons who cooked up this war have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. None. Nada. And neither do you.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Ooops…here’s the link.
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/01/flashback/
January 11th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Yeah, its a stupid move by Chavez to insult Insulza even if Insulza was wrong.
But shutting down the rightwing television station — am all for it. Don’t know too many governments who would permit any business to continue operating if it openly fomented and plotted a coup against it. Ehh? Think on it before being a pendejo!
January 11th, 2007 at 8:16 am
reg, it’s all in the eye of the beholder, and there is no reason for me to respect how you see matters in politics. I guess that it doesn’t matter to you that Hussein possessed and used poisonous gas to kill tens of thousands. Maybe you think so much time passed since then that he had changed his ways. If only the Iraqi court had your wisdom and threw out the tapes as non-relevant. Yeah, and, you question my analysis and moral compass? However, I might accept your mention that it would be a waste of time discussing heterosexual sex with Richard Simmons. He might talk over your head about it.
Randy, I know the facts; but, better than you, I can anlayze and interpret them. I’ve never seen someone else like you who has such a poor understanding of many matters, yet professes to be an expert on them.
Incidentally, Marc’s post was about Chavez, still you two managed to spend your time on this discussing me and Iraq. Take off your narrow blinders.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Randy, I know the facts; but, better than you, I can anlayze and interpret them. I’ve never seen someone else like you who has such a poor understanding of many matters, yet professes to be an expert on them.
LOL
Actually, Woody, it was you who drew the subject away from Chavez.
Pentilho!
January 11th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Just as Democrats supported the Sandinistas over Reagan and favored Castro to take Elian, they will support Chavez over Bush.
You know the facts? Please get a grip:
Next time actually think, don’t just react.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Randy, here was my initial post that you and others used to get to other topics:
From Marc’s (referenced) article: “(Chavez) said one of the proposed constitutional reforms would allow “indefinite re-election†by doing away with presidential term limits that bar him from running again in 2012.”
Gee, do you think he has a chance of getting this passed? Why, that could make him like a dictator, even though the elections are “democratically†held.
I’m sure that Jimmy Carter will announce to the world, as he has done before, that future elections in Venezuela are fair–although he disputes those in the U.S. Let’s close our eyes, since Chavez is one of the fellow Bush bashers.
The usual suspects of the left, even as evidenced by some comments above, will avoid disputes about Chavez, while attacking their own President. Just as we’re about to get rid of Castro, the left will have another hero in that region.
So much for freedom and democracy.
Now, if you will re-read the comment, it mentions Chavez throughout and discusses that Chavez could become the “new Castro” and that he is being accepted or given a pass by the Left, which could result in the elimination of freedoms and killing of democracy in his country. Naturally, you were so busy thinking of other off-topic matters that you failed to even notice or comprehend that.
On your follow-up post, I said the “usual suspects of the left,” so you bring up one person–Charlie Rangel. Thanks for letting us know that he is part of the Left-wing movement rather than a just liberal Democrat–a distinction of terms made quite often over here but which you have now combined.
The press and internet are filled with people from the U.S. who admire Chavez for attacking President Bush. Read these comments from and about some of the usual suspects found in a random sample:
The Huffington Post: Chavez Wins In Landslide…
I hope our next presidential election has such a clear winner, meaning an overwhelming majority of the votes. Not the 50-50 scenarios we’ve had to swallow. Congratulations to Mr. Chavez.
ANOTHER bad day for the chimpy.
Bravo, Chavez, bravo…, Viva Chavez!!, VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!, CHAVEZ BOLIVAR!
If they hate America the Left loves ‘em. Some things never change.
Congratulations President Chavez. Please liberate the American people from the force of evil.
Woo Hoo! Socialism wins again! When oh when will we Americans become as enlightened and nuanced as the Venezuelans? Perhaps we can start by the government takeover of American oil companies????
Dean’s World: More Left Wing Death Squads
It’s odd how the term “Death Squad” is usually preceded by the phrase “Right Wing”. Odd because state terrorism is virtually owned by Marxism. 100 million dead as a result of Communism is proof of that.
It’s also funny how the Left repeats, ad nauseum, the phrase “Democratically Elected Hugo Chavez”. What kind of Democratically elected leader kills people for the “crime” of protesting his regime?
Need any more “facts” or do you want to try to convince me that one Democratic repersentative speaks for the radical left of this country?
As you did me, I would ask you to “think, just don’t react,” but that’s asking more than of which you are capable.
BTW, at first I didn’t read your comment from 6:59 PM of last night, because it was addressed to reg and your kindred. On a more recent comment by you, the correct spelling is “Pentelho,” détritus blanc stupide.
Now, RP, please quit wasting my time with your frivolous and inaccurate retorts. Same for you, reg.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Not to put to fine a point on things, I found the link via Google in about thirty seconds.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Good grief, my “comment is awaiting moderation,” which often means never. Therefore, I will break it up in an attempt to post it again.
Part 1 of 3
Randy, here was my initial post that you and others used to get to other topics:
From Marc’s (referenced) article: “(Chavez) said one of the proposed constitutional reforms would allow “indefinite re-election†by doing away with presidential term limits that bar him from running again in 2012.”
Gee, do you think he has a chance of getting this passed? Why, that could make him like a dictator, even though the elections are “democratically†held.
I’m sure that Jimmy Carter will announce to the world, as he has done before, that future elections in Venezuela are fair–although he disputes those in the U.S. Let’s close our eyes, since Chavez is one of the fellow Bush bashers.
The usual suspects of the left, even as evidenced by some comments above, will avoid disputes about Chavez, while attacking their own President. Just as we’re about to get rid of Castro, the left will have another hero in that region.
So much for freedom and democracy.
Now, if you will re-read the comment, it mentions Chavez throughout and discusses that Chavez could become the “new Castro” and that he is being accepted or given a pass by the Left, which could result in the elimination of freedoms and killing of democracy in his country. Naturally, you were so busy thinking of other off-topic matters that you failed to even notice or comprehend that.
(Continued)
January 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Part 2 of 3
On your follow-up post, I said the “usual suspects of the left,” so you bring up one person–Charlie Rangel. Thanks for letting us know that he is part of the Left-wing movement rather than a just liberal Democrat–a distinction of terms made quite often over here but which you have now combined.
The press and internet are filled with people from the U.S. who admire Chavez for attacking President Bush. Read these comments from and about some of the usual suspects found in a random sample:
The Huffington Post: Chavez Wins In Landslide…
I hope our next presidential election has such a clear winner, meaning an overwhelming majority of the votes. Not the 50-50 scenarios we’ve had to swallow. Congratulations to Mr. Chavez.
ANOTHER bad day for the chimpy.
Bravo, Chavez, bravo…, Viva Chavez!!, VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!, CHAVEZ BOLIVAR!
If they hate America the Left loves ‘em. Some things never change.
Congratulations President Chavez. Please liberate the American people from the force of evil.
Woo Hoo! Socialism wins again! When oh when will we Americans become as enlightened and nuanced as the Venezuelans? Perhaps we can start by the government takeover of American oil companies????
(Continued)
January 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Part 3 of 3
Dean’s World: More Left Wing Death Squads
It’s odd how the term “Death Squad” is usually preceded by the phrase “Right Wing”. Odd because state terrorism is virtually owned by Marxism. 100 million dead as a result of Communism is proof of that.
It’s also funny how the Left repeats, ad nauseum, the phrase “Democratically Elected Hugo Chavez”. What kind of Democratically elected leader kills people for the “crime” of protesting his regime?
Need any more “facts” or do you want to try to convince me that one Democratic repersentative speaks for the radical left of this country?
As you did me, I would ask you to “think, just don’t react,” but that’s asking more than of which you are capable.
BTW, at first I didn’t read your comment from 6:59 PM of last night, because it was addressed to reg and your kindred. On a more recent comment by you, the correct spelling is “Pentelho,” détritus blanc stupide.
Now, RP, please quit wasting my time with your frivolous and inaccurate retorts. Same for you, reg.
(End)
January 11th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Well, Part 2 of 3 is also “awaiting moderation,” possibly because it links The Huffington Post. Who knows? Anyway, you can just stay in suspense until and if Marc clears it.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Woody,
You said that the democrats would support Chavez over Bush. I proved that in fact that they defended Bush against Chavez: game set and match. You’re in denial.
Regarding my typo on pentelho, I stand corrected. Rest assured that I will not waste anyone’s time dissecting your typos. I’m certainly not petty.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:19 am
“I guess that it doesn’t matter to you that Hussein possessed and used poisonous gas to kill tens of thousands.”
No Woody, it mattered to me. I have never supported Saddam Hussein. I opposed aiding him and I opposed Bush 1 letting him fly his helicopters after the 1st Gulf War to put down the Shiite insurrections. But it didn’t matter to Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld that he possessed and used poisonous gass - two of your heroes according to remarks made here over the years - when they gave him military assistance, nor, obviously did it matter to the neo-cons like Mylroie and Pipes who argued furiously for even more.
You literally make things up as you go along to support your partisanship and your ignorance.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am
More criticism of Chavez from the left.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Woody said: The usual suspects of the left, even as evidenced by some comments above, will avoid disputes about Chavez, while attacking their own President.
Randy Paul said: You said that the democrats would support Chavez over Bush. I proved that in fact that they defended Bush against Chavez: game set and match.
Sorry, Randy. You’re wrong again. My debating you is like Florida playing Ohio State. You’re overrated.
—–
reg, you’re a broken record. It’s absurd to say that Reagan didn’t care about innocent people being gassed. Perhaps you can give me the quote where he admits knowing about that and saying that he didn’t care. Why, you think Reagan was mentally incompetent and out of it his entire administration. As usual, a conservative president is stupid to you until you want to give him credit for something that required thinking. Who’s making things up?
January 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
P.S. Randy, regarding pettiness, you made a big deal a couple of months ago in defense of yourself by saying that I needed a better modifier in a perfectly clear and grammatically correct statement in which you had drawn an incorrect conclusion. (It had to do with the Democratic Congress vs. the “current” Democratic Congress.) What a fool, besides being petty and proud. You went to college? (I won’t ask reg that. We know the answer, and it shows.)
January 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Woody,
You obviously have a cognition problem. I quoted you verbatim:
I gave an example in which Democrats defended Bush aagainst remarks made by Chavez. You’re in denial. get a grip.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
It’s was well-known that Saddam Hussein was engaged in chemical weapons attacks when Reagan gave Iraq military assistance. This isn’t something that’s even debated as regards the historical record and what was documented at the time. Reagan was either a complete idiot or grossly immoral. Take your pick. (Maybe both.)
I should have listened to my own advice when I noted that it would be more edifying to discuss heterosexual sex with Richard Simmons than foreign policy with a blithering, boring idiot who doesn’t know when to just shut up.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Randy, look at my multiple examples supporting me rather than your one isolated example where a U.S. representataive didn’t attack Chavez except to say that he was out of line for attacking our President while in our country.
“You don’t come into my country; you don’t come into my congressional district and you don’t condemn my president,” Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
I haven’t noticed him or anyone else taking up for Bush once Chavez went back. Your example is isolated and does not prove a rule. Pathetic.
—–
reg, I see. Whenever I say something, I’m supposed to document it with volumes of material from people acceptable only to you. When I ask you to back up your statement, you just say that it was just well-known while not documented.
Naturally, I’m sure that you hope your insults will shut me up so that you can continue with your mutual admiration society of lefties on this site without being called to account for the actions of Democrats and the Left and your own twisted versions of events. But, as we’ve seen, just one match can bring light to a room filled with darkness.
It’s amazing that your brilliance has never been recognized by the world by electing to you high office–or, maybe it’s not.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
Careful with that match…since any room you’re in is likely to be filled with gas.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
reggie, reggie…, there you go googling again…just what you criticize others for doing. From your articles…”secret unidentified sources” but “Reagan wanted no illegalities” and “Rumsfeld warned Iraq.” That’s your condemnation?
The world and the mideast were very different back then, and the atrocities were not fully realized and events were different. The way our nation handled Iraq with what was known and with existing standards was not out of line with anything that Democrats held back then–except for their political posturing. Too bad that we had to back Iraq after Iran deteriorated, when Carter let the radicals throw out our guy and take over that country.
Yet, you still try to compare that period under Reagan, described by “unknowns or secret memos” to today’s situation with today’s information and today’s concerns. Guess what. We dropped atomic weapons on Japan, and it made perfect sense at the time. You guys are wonderful second-guessers and reject any realistic view of the world and the leaders during the periods discussed. Naturally, such efforts are meant to discredit Republicans rather than understand and present an accurate history of the period.
If I enter a dark room to light a match, the only source of gas would be from the skunks who would like everyone to remain in the dark.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Reagan was complicit in aiding war crimes that he full well knew were being committed by Saddam. Now, go ahead twist your little panties…
January 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Randy Paul, I just remembered this contemporaneous post and comments, including some by leftist buddy Ahmed, regarding Charlie Rangel, whose remarks about Chavez and Bush were offset by those of Tom Harkin. It seems to be a fair and balanced analysis, giving credit where credit is due.
http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/197655.php
January 11th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I guess I’m like Goebbels when he heard the word “Culture.” When I hear the phrase “Fair and Balanced” I reach for my remote (I’m too sweet tempered a guy to reach for a gun!)
January 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Woody,
Your method of arguing is to engage in gross generalizations and smearing. It is the style of the intellectually lazy and vacuous. Grow up.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
“Your method of arguing is to engage in gross generalizations and smearing…”.
This pretty much encapsulates the playbook of the MSM. All of a sudden, anti-war has become ‘anti-surge’, populism has become ‘anti-american’ and all of you fools are arguing with Woody, missing a miracle-in-progress: South America beginning to shed the yoke of 500 years of US/European domination. It’s gaining momentum, and its probably going to happen regardless of what western commentators think is ‘best’ for South Americans.
One important barometer of the decline of US supremacy in world affairs is the degree of irrelevance of US opinion - right and left - regarding the internal events of South America.
So blog/blather all you like. If you are left of Woody and MSM, you are closer to the truth much like Pluto is closer to Neptune than Earth is…
January 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Randy, be fair, Cooper has smeared enough people on this comments board in his time and supported people like Laguerre or Totten when they smeared antiwar activists or people who walked in marches as unamerican hippies…
Or think of how Cooper smears opponents as people who adore Kim Sungil or worse….he’s not exactly a model of civil discourse or fair play. Before he changed his mind on sending more troops to Iraq, he had some pretty unkind words for those who called for troops out now…Heck, he even calls his ‘friends’ like Robert Brenner ‘dogmatic’ with reference to apparently nothing…No model of ‘civil’ or intelligent exchange of ideas there…