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…

Your method of arguing is to engage in gross generalizations and smearing. It is the style of the intellectually lazy and vacuous. Grow up.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

You obviously have a cognition problem. I quoted you verbatim:

Just as Democrats supported the Sandinistas over Reagan and favored Castro to take Elian, they will support Chavez over Bush.

I gave an example in which Democrats defended Bush aagainst remarks made by Chavez. You’re in denial. get a grip.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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)