Portrait of a Dictator
Excelente!
We've been waiting quite a lonnngggg time for this one. After seven years of sloshing around in political hot water, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was for the first time today formally fingerprinted and photographed for a mug shot.
This comes after the Chilean Supreme Court refused to block his prosecution for the disappearance of political dissidents. Wonderful news, really. Here's the news lead from Agence France-Presse:
The former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was fingerprinted and photographed for the first time overnight as police opened a criminal file into his alleged role in the deaths of political opponents in 1975.
Officers came to Pinochet's home in the elegant La Dehesa neighbourhood, where he has been under house arrest for five weeks, to fingerprint and photograph the aging strongman, taking both a head shot and profile.
It was the first time ever that the former Chilean president was booked, although he has faced prosecution three times in the last five years on charges related to the deaths or disappearances of some 3,000 people during his 1973-1990 regime.
"There is no doubt, it's an insult," said Pinochet lawyer Pablo Rodriguez after judge Victor Montiglio ordered the procedure.
By the way, this guy Pablo Rodriguez -- Pinochet's lawyer-- know who he is? In the 1970's Rodriguez was the leader of an overtly fascist street gang called Fatherland and Freedom. They used a Nazi salute and a flag with a Swatztika. Nice folks, aren't they?
Nazi lawyers or not-- looks like Old Man Pinochet's troubles are still far from over.
Quick, someone call Ramsey Clark.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
“Quick, someone call Ramsey Clark.”
Woops! Wrong guy. He’s the US hater, remember. And we all know which side the US government was on in this sordid affair.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Maybe the defense attorney will subpoena Pinochet’s former interpreter, who can clear up this big misunderstanding.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Marc Davidson, the left complains that the US was on Saddam’s side too, and Ramsey is defending him.
Cooper was right… “call Ramsey Clark.”
Clark doesn’t care which asshole he defends as long as it’s an asshole.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
After a little research I found this bit of information—if you didn’t know that the following paragraphs pertained to Chile, you would assume they were describing Iraq’s political fate in the early 60’s. How unfortunate, for the regimes of third world countries that our tentacles can stretch like a giant hungry octopus when we are in the throes of a feeding frenzy —It’s a tough and messy job preserving an empire.
The geo-political rationale was outlined in a CIA postmortem dated Nov. 12, 1970. It noted that “Dr. Salvador Allende became the first democratically-elected Marxist head of state in the history of Latin America — despite the opposition of the U.S. Government. As a result, U.S. prestige and interests are being affected materially at a time when the U.S. can ill afford problems in an area that has been traditionally accepted as the U.S. ‘backyard’.”
Covert funds were funneled into Chilean congressional campaigns; CIA agents stayed close to disgruntled Chilean military officers; to keep the military on edge, the CIA planted false propaganda suggesting that the Chilean left planned to take control of the armed forces; and the CIA secretly poured $1.5 million into one of Chile’s leading newspapers, El Mercurio.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
And this all started when a Spanish Judge issued an arrest warrant that a British Home Secretary Honored. Wouldn’t it be nice if Rummy, Chaney and Shrub had to change their travel plans when they left office. Then maybe the US citizenry would grown a pair – like Chile.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Most folks are completely unaware of that CIA history but as I found out in my latter years college work the foreign students sure were.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Why not add a few more ingredients to this unsavory stew—
National Security Archive Documents
Document 1: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Frank Teruggi,” December 14, 1972
Among the hundreds of newly-released records is an FBI report from late-1972 on Teruggi’s attendance of a conference of the Committee of Returned [Peace Corp] Volunteers in 1971, and his membership in the “Chicago Area Group on the Liberation of the Americas.” This document makes it clear that Teruggi was, at a minimum, under surveillance while in the United States and raises the question as to whether or not this information was shared with the Chilean military.
Document 2: U.S. Embassy Santiago, “[Deleted] Reports on GOC [Government of Chile] Involvement in Death of Charles Horman, Asks Embassy for Asylum and Aid,” April 28, 1987
Nearly fourteen years after the coup, an informant seeking political asylum at the U.S. Embassy in Chile offers an account of Horman’s death. Horman was picked up in a routine sweep, the informant suggests, and was found in possession of “extremist” materials. He was then taken the National Stadium where he was interrogated and later executed on the orders of Pedro Espinoza. Embassy officials note that his story “corresponds with what we know about the case and the [Chilean government] attempt to cover up their involvement,” suggesting that the informant is probably telling the truth.
For those who are unacquainted with these two Americans-—they were killed by the Chilean Military in the infamous “sports stadium†which became known for their mass executions.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Fair enough, GM; however, the US needs to cut Pinochet, and all he stands for, loose before Clark steps in. This would be a significant repudiation of our Latin American policy over the last century. Very unlikely.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Mr. D, you and I agree. Pinochet gives honest conservatives a bad name, as he was never a conservative, and always a ultra-rignt wing thug. But, right wing thugs and left wing thugs (Chavez and Castro come to mind) all have one thing in common. They are thugs.
December 28th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
“Clark doesn’t care which asshole he defends as long as it’s an asshole.”
Not that I give a shit one way or another, but this is a silly comment. If Clark didn’t care which asshole he defends, he’d have spent October of 2004 stumping for Bush/Cheney….
As for Pinochet giviing “honest conservatives a bad name”, I don’t think it’s so simple and easy to sidestep, desireable as that may be in hindsight and, in particular, on Marc’s blog. Pinochet has always had his own fish to fry and could give a shit about his impact on the reputations of minions of National Review, The Wall Street Journal editorial page or – god forbid – Newsmax…but damn near the entire “honest conservative” movement of the U.S. lined up behind the Nixon/Kissinger policy of supporting Pinochet, thereby definitely undermining their moral authority on human rights and democracy issues and giving themselves a bad name which they bear to this day…and richly deserve. Fact: the left (no matter how you define it) in the U.S. opposed the Pinochet coup and the right either applauded or sat on their hands. Some of those who opposed Pinochet refuse to criticize Castro, which is a game you’re welcome to play, but this revisionist bullshit attempting to exonerate the right makes me want to puke…
William F. Buckley – surely an “honest conservative” if there ever was one – writing on the arrest of Pinochet in 1998:
“(T)he General Pinochet business really burns us conservatives up. The reason being that it is, above all things, an act of ideological malice.
(snip)
Pinochet took power in September 1973, against a president who was defiling the Chilean constitution and waving proudly the banner of his friend and idol, Fidel Castro. Across the Andes there was civil rage as revolutionaries and leftist activists sought power and engaged in terrorism. Pinochet fought back. It is charged that 3,000 people lost their lives. It is worth reflecting on the great cost of civil wars. Our own resulted in 365,000 deaths. In order to avoid civil war, extreme actions are taken.”
Pinochet didn’t put a gun to Bill’s head to write that apologetic crap, and it’s not an anomolous comment from a right-wing kook. A little of the “honesty and integrity” you tout is in order.
December 28th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Incidentally, as an addendum to my comment on Clark, I think that to reduce his motivations to “I’ll defend any asshole” actually trivializes what disgusts me, for one, about Ramsey Clark – which is his remarkably shitty, injudicious political agenda – and makes him seem like a run-of-the-mill criminal lawyer who, by virtue of his profession and certain rather significant arrangements written into the Constitution by the greatest minds in our nation’s history, will indeed defend any asshole, regardless – which, while often distasteful in it’s specifics and outcomes, is as it should be.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
It seem like the estimate of 3000 deaths was a bit modest on the part Mr. “B†similar to the estimate proffered by Little George when he stated 30,00 civilians died in Iraq “more or less.†It also seems that ultra-conservatives have a cavalier attitude about death, unless of course it’s their own.
“But even the CIA’s best propaganda could not hide the reality on the ground. The coup’s brutality was drawing worldwide condemnation and prompting worries at the White House. “Internationally, the Junta’s repressive image continues to plague it,” stated a Kissinger briefing paper on Nov. 16, 1973. Reports of mass arrests — by then, U.S. intelligence put the number at 13,500 — as well as summary executions, torture and “disappearances” were reaching the world press.â€
In 1951, Buckley was recruited into the CIA where he served for less than one year. Little has been published regarding Buckley’s work with the CIA, but in a 2001 letter to author W. Thomas Smith Jar, Buckley wrote, “I did training in Washington as a secret
Agent and was sent to Mexico City.
Is it no wonder that Buckley would be an apologist for a regime that his buddies put into place? I guess genocide caused by right wing fascism is an acceptable form of “CIA Democracy.â€
I must admit, that when I reflect on the comments made by Buckley’s during “Firing Line,†he struck me as being arrogant, pretentious and pompous. Maybe, those are the characteristics one needs to have in order to be recruited by the CIA.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:11 am
“Maybe the defense attorney will subpoena Pinochet’s former interpreter, who can clear up this big misunderstanding”
Who exactly are you referring to, Woody? Or is it possible that you have confused a democratically elected president with the leader of a military coup?
December 29th, 2005 at 12:35 am
Putting Pinochet in the dock is a good thing, but don’t think it doesn’t have it’s price.
Castro and Chavez, basically indistinguishable from Pinochet (except Pinochet had lots of friends and excuse-makers on the Right; Castro and Chavez on the Left) are going to look at Pinochet (and Saddam) and make damn sure those noisy reformers or democracy activists or troublesome poets, writers, and librarians are locked up forever or accidentally on purpose killed.
I also btw can’t believe that Marc and others left out the major US angle on Pinochet … his agents use of terrorism to blow up Orlando Letelier and Roffi Moffit (the latter a US citizen and the exiled Letelier’s lawyer) in DC in broad daylight. With a bomb.
The US in the interests of Justice should charge Pinochet with this crime.
For those “nostalgiac” for the Cold War; well Pinochet and Saddam were respectively the US and the Soviet’s creatures, though later Saddam dumped the Soviets for us for about ten years. Multiply that by a thousand and you see the misery the Cold War put forward. It did not CREATE Pinochet or Saddam, Chile and Iraq did that, but it pushed them far forward of where they might otherwise have landed.
To Reg’s suggestion that “International Justice” put Bush in the Dock, well I’d like to see them try. Pray tell where can the families of 9/11 submit their claim for justice? What international court will take that case? Or the pitiful few survivors of Darfur? Or perhaps Srebenica? It’s been what six years or so since Milosevic was handed over, and Miladec and company still at large?
The Hague is worse than a joke, it’s the equivalent of the Mississippi juries that let Byron de La Beckwith walk all those years when they knew damn well he lay in wait for Medgar Evers and shot him in the back. The Hague threatens to indict Sharon or Bush but won’t indict Arafat, Abbas, anyone from Hamas, Ahmadinejad, or any tin-pot third-rate anti-Western dicator with blood on their hands (such as Baby Assad).
Any attempt to apply the law of one country to international problems is disaster. Like calling the Police to a scene of a fire. Whose laws apply? The US? Saudi Arabia’s? Sharia?
[Somewhat OT, LAT got another one wrong again. Their front page story on the Wolves ran an e-mail hoax attributed to the Governor declaring wolves "feral dogs" and overturning federal protected status. Editors and reporter never bothered to check. Joe Bob Blogger does a better job of accuracy than the Times.]
December 29th, 2005 at 4:28 am
“To Reg’s suggestion that “International Justice†put Bush in the Dock, well I’d like to see them try.”
What the fuck are you talking about ??? This is typical Rockford…what a wanker. You are just sooooooo uniquely able to miss the point.
As for the “moral equivalence” between Hugo Chavez and Pinochet, well that’s fine for “Joe Bob Blogger” ranting and raving, but it doesn’t pass even the most basic evidentiary or analytical test. The commentary on the L’Etelier/Moffet murders is wishful thinking of the airiest-fairiest sort and conveniently sidesteps the most telling crux of the matter, since any attempt to unravel the actions of Townley and his cohorts would implicate Kissinger and old CIA honcho GHW Bush for criminal negligence in their relations with Operation Condor as well. They knew that these schemes were in place but failed to act, warn potential victims or put pressure on Pinochet to stop it for political reasons.
Why the fuck do I let these mindless, fantastical and/or generally clueless rants by the usual suspects get under my skin ?
December 29th, 2005 at 5:46 am
reg: “Why the fuck do I let these mindless, fantastical and/or generally clueless rants by the usual suspects get under my skin?”
I know what you mean, but I try not to let Rockhead get under my skin anymore, and I also try to restrain myself from responding to any of his “points” as if I were having a discussion with a rational human being.
Refuting his lies is also something I’ve given up on, since it would have to be an all-day every day job.
But, sometimes, one just can’t resist throwing rocks and making faces at the neighborhood retard.
Case in point…
Rockford: “The Hague threatens to indict Sharon or Bush but won’t indict Arafat”
He’s dead, in case you havn’t noticed. And for two years prior to his death he was confined to his “HQ”, beseiged, constantly bombarded and had little contact with the outside world.
“Abbas”
Abbas was about the most supine stepinfetchit that could be dug up to be given the job of “PM”. The whole point of him being put in power was that he would always do what was asked of him and he never engaged in, or ordered, any kind of “terrorism”. This would be the equivalent of Lord Fauntleroy demanding the immediate execution of his favorite Indian coolie/rickshaw driver for “treason.” By the way, exactly what sort of horrible crimes has Abbas committed that the Hague should want to put him on trial? He didn’t say “how high?” fast enough when asked to jump?
“Ahmadinejad, or any tin-pot third-rate anti-Western dicator with blood on their hands (such as Baby Assad).”
Admittedly Ahmadinejad has committed some horrific and brutal crimes — “hate” thought and “hate” speech being just about the worst crimes that one can commit in the 21st Century — and he has judiciously been prosecuted for these crimes of speech and thought in the Western press. But exactly whose “blood” does he have on his “hands”? I have heard some rather fantastic tales being spun by the ever-reliable Kurds about how “Ahmadinejad personally skinned my father alive and used his flesh to make kabobs” and that sort of thing, but one would think that the Hague would require evidence other than suspect anecdotes delivered by handmaidens in order to make a case for “crimes against humanity.”
December 29th, 2005 at 7:07 am
Reg, since you lack the discernment to understand my comment, let me explain. You lefties typically lump thugs like Pinochet in with conservatives. On the other hand, thugs like Chavez seldom get recognized as being “lefties.” I won’t put Chavez in the same boat with you for example. His boat is titled Thuggery, your boat is titled Stupid.
And, as Woody would say, Kiss my Grits.
December 29th, 2005 at 7:42 am
Michael Balter, you are correct. I made a gross mistake with my remark. Marc Cooper, of course, was the translator for President Allende and not General Pinochet. There is a big difference, so I humbly retract my earlier and inaccurate statement.
December 29th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Mark York wrote: Most folks are completely unaware of that CIA history but as I found out in my latter years college work the foreign students sure were.
Is this the single most incoherent sentence he has ever written? Mark what is your point?
December 29th, 2005 at 8:27 am
No doubt that the regime of Castro and, to a much lesser extent, that of Chavez are repressive. But the reason they are targeted by the US is not because they’re repressive but because they engage in populist politics that challenge our corporate interests.
The “thuggery” label for conservatives is reserved for those who buck the US economic agenda. It is simply a propaganda tool to get those who don’t share this agenda on board. Speak the whole truth or say nothing at all.
December 29th, 2005 at 8:40 am
MD: “It is simply a propaganda tool to get those who don’t share this agenda on board. Speak the whole truth or say nothing at all.”
Give me a break! So I guess when you guys use words like “winger” it is only a propaganda tool? I used THUG for Chavez, Castro and Pinochet because that is what they are (and with any luck at all, Pinochet will be past tense before too long).
December 29th, 2005 at 9:31 am
“Thugs like Chavez seldom get recognized as lefties”
Really ??? That’s the first time I’ve ever come across that assertion. Maybe you better check the name on your boat, because from here it looks like it’s the S.S. Stupid.
I don’t actually consider Pinochet a conservative so much as a fascist. That so many among the “honest conservatives” were willing to embrace him as a useful tool in their crusade against any and all manifestations of leftism in Latin American means that they were lumping themselves together with him and history records that episode, whether a rhetorical blunderbuss such as youself wants to face the fact or not.
Incidentally, I may be stupid but to simply throw all “thugs” together in the same boat without analysing the social base of their power, the nature of their popular appeal and the historical context of their ascension may be satisfying for you and the dozen guys cheering you on if you’re Joe Bob Blogger, but it doesn’t work for anyone who strives for intellectual credibility or historical relevance. And this crap about Chavez as simply a thug who used illegitimate means to gain power is, frankly, fraudulent unless and until HE’S the one who abandons the electoral process and starts planning coups, like his opponents. Get a grip…
I’ve always wondered why they say “Talk is cheap”, and then I read some of the careless, clueless commentary on the web and realize the price has actually gone down in recent years. The guy who used to be muttering to himself in the coffeeshop, shouting into his newpaper or pontificating at the end of the bar is now running a website and fancies himself an authoritative voice – along with Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt. (Did I mentioin Roger Simon? No? Him too.) Compared to this land of the blind, one-eyed, witless and half-witted, the pontifications, arrogance, pomposity and erudition-as-a-form-of-intimidation purveyed all those years by old Bill Buckley would seem almost welcome.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:33 am
I’m going to break my silence when questioned directly. Even with a missing comma, a reader should be able detect foreign students I met in college were well aware of this history. What part of that isn’t clear?
December 29th, 2005 at 11:28 am
I think when GM Roper said that thugs like Chavez and Castro are seldom recognized as lefties, what he means is something like: the left is more than willing to associate right-side thugs and fascists with the American right, often justifiably, but is also more than willing to de-emphaize the crimes of the left-side thugs like Castro and Chavez while also generally denying any association of those thugs with the domestic left in any situation where said crimes cannot be denied.
Here in Minneapolis, there are plenty of lefties praising Chavez as a hero opposing American hegemony. Yet I suspect we will find out more and more in years ahead about his crimes, including simply crimes of absolutely loony and mutually contradictory policies driving his nation into further disarray.
Of course policy-related misdeeds like that are none of our business, and not really crimes at all, unless wedded to brutality, anti-democratic acts, repression, and flirting with alliances with entities like al Qaeda.
There are many such stories out there, some probably more valid than others, but I’d place a fairly sizeable bet that there’s more to them than a guy like reg would currently either be aware of or acknowledge.
It’s a general pattern I’ve noticed in my own gradually more open reading of conservative writers and magazines: there’s a whole “altnerative history” of thuggishness that draws the right’s attention, alternative that is to the thuggishness that has drawn the left like a magnet ever since I’ve been alive, and it’s not all bullshit.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
During a recent Sunday of football watching (Go Vikes! Well, I guess there is always next year), I got to chatting with my neighbor at the bar. As it turns out, his father is a prominent economist who worked for many years for Pinochet. I’m not hugely up on Pinochet’s crimes beyond a surface understanding of the coup and the later repressions and disappearances. I know enough to know that Pinochet belongs to the club of bad guys that we happily propped up in the name of anti-communism.
But my fellow football fan told me that Pinochet was terribly misunderstood, he was a nice fellow, he did great things for the economy, he lifted the country out of poverty, and that his current vilification is terribly undeserved. I wasn’t much in the mood for a debate, and didn’t have a lot of facts at my fingers, so I let it slide. It is interesting though, how a little shift in perspective can make the Earth look like Mars–how a fascist can become a nice guy–if you’re on his payroll.
As for those of you who feel compelled to mention Castro and Chavez (not sure Chavez yet belongs in any such list), can’t you ever just make a stand on principle? Can’t you just say Pinochet is getting what he deserves without running for the cover of some miscreant of the left? You’re like the Dems who can’t call Clinton a seedy crook without referring to Nixon. Pinochet, the dictator, is getting a little justice served up…its got nothing at all to do with Castro. When Castro gets his, I’ll happily say he deserves it without any reference at all to D’Aubuisson.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
If my current picture of Pinochet is accurate, then I will continue to happily agree with Christopher Hitchens that he’s getting what he deserves.
The reason I find it useful to point out what seems to be left disingenuousness on these sorts of questions is because it’s an unhappy characteristic of American politics these days that the left tends to insist that conservatives and conservatism are evil; an aspect of that is overlooking the moral flaws in their own beliefs and theories and perceptions.
You seem reasonable, Dan O, but here’s a thing that gives me a slight chill: your preference for assuming your neighbor and his father are profit-morivated sell-outs to fascism, rather than at least investigating his argument a bit.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Dan O. and Paul From Minneapolis, well said, both of you.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Paul:
I’m concluding nothing beyond that to assert that Pinochet was good for Chile is to ignore certain rather large facts, which will soon be put to the courts. I also think it is entirely possible for fascist leaders to be charming individuals, but to fall under the influence of that charm takes a certain willful ignorance. And also, there is nothing chlling to me about the assertion that getting paid to render service to a dictatorship is likely to distort your viewpoint (if not chip away at whatever moral and civic sense you may have). But to your point, yes it would be interesting to hear what he has to say about the virtues of Pinochet. Perhaps he made the trains run on time.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Okay. I understand.
Perhaps part of his response maight also be what he believes Pinochet helped avoid? I haven’t investigated in any detail at all, but I’ve always suspected that our collective memory of Allende might be a bit gauzy.
And yes, go Vikes. Keep going… a little further.. don’t stop yet… further….
December 29th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I think by this juncture in history, it’s fair to conclude that MOST people –right or left– alter their view of reality to conform to one or another ideological bias. Far too many people on the Right who claim to champion freedom too often mean only economic freedom, as they define it. Or worse, they defined freedom as being aligned with U.S. foreign policy. They were willing to overlook authoritarian dictatorships stretching from Chile, to So Korea to the Phillipines to Pakistan as long as those regimes were pro-US and anti-communist. The Left — in all its shadings– has been prone to the same selective vision i.e. no problem in denouncing Pinochet but willing to defend Castro’s one man half-century long dictatorship; legitimately worried that the Patriot Act infringes civil liberties but willing to close a blind eye to absolutely non-existent press freedoms in Cuba. And so on and so on.
I frankly don’t believe either side can claim the moral high ground here. It’s not that conservatives or leftists are either a priori more or less hypocritical.. It’s more that most people are less than intellectually honest, even when they strive to be.
People who cherish freedom — without qualifiers– cannot remotely support either Pinochet or Castro. And they would be will served to keep their eyes wide open regarding Chavez AND his opposition for that matter.
Politics is not a zero sum game. Ordinary people are almost always the losers no matter who pushes who from the seat of power/
December 29th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
“As for those of you who feel compelled to mention Castro and Chavez (not sure Chavez yet belongs in any such list), can’t you ever just make a stand on principle?”
Very cute move, Dan O. It was GM who first brought up Castro and Chavez in the context of everyone else beating up on Pinochet.
Right, Paul, let’s give Pinochet another look. Maybe history will look kindly on the economic policies of this “misunderstood” fellow as it might on the secularizing and women’s rights policies of the Saddam Hussein regime.
Shame on you, GM, for applauding such nonsense.
December 29th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Please. No one ask him a direct question!
December 29th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
“I think by this juncture in history, it’s fair to conclude that MOST people –right or left– alter their view of reality to conform to one or another ideological bias.”
Well said, Marc. But humans are political animals and ultimately we need to pick a side. Living in the perpetual on-the-one-hand-yet-on-the-other-hand world doesn’t get us very far as citizens. At some point everyone of us needs to make a choice of which side we’ll be on. No choice is going to be perfect, yet it can be informed by our experiences, our instincts, and our ability to reason. And frankly, if this means emphasizing, at times, one over the others… well that’s how we cope with an imperfect world, one which we cannot fully control.
December 29th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Hey Marc –
I think you’re a little over-eager to castigate there. All I’m indicating is an openness to looking at something, anything, I really haven’t looked at in any great detail at all, other than simply assuming the version we’ve all heard is accurate, whcih it may be I don’t think it’s completely “shameful” for GM to respond somewhat favorably to that.
December 29th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Im not castigating you whatsoever, Paul. I wasn’t referring to you in specific. I have spent many many days, weeks and months speaking to some very reasonable people who supported Pinochet. I listened politely, sometimes, and with respect, sometimes, and always concluded, however, that they were unwittingly or willfully blind.
That said, Marc Davidson, what on earth do u mean by “choosing sides?” That, my friend, is the entire problem… not the solution. The choice is not between picking a side, or adopting a-one-hand-but-on-the other fecklessness. It’s, rather, about standing by principles. It seems to me that suporting principles of more freedom, more democrcay, more equality, defense of personal and political freedom is a great start and universally applicable. No qualifiers.
When you do otherwise you lose all moral and political credibility. Between the Cuban government, say, and the Cuban people, you “pick” the government because that is “your side?” I dont think so. Think about what ur saying.
December 29th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Sorry – I was talking to Marc Davidson.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Marc, Have you never been on a particular side of an issue? Allied yourself with a particular movement? Associated yourself with others who have an agenda similar to yours? That’s picking sides. Are you suggesting that there is something unseemly about engagement in the political process? Is the only honest human endeavor sitting on the sidelines and observing and commenting on what’s transpiring on the field of play? I don’t think so. I’m no apologist for Chavez, Castro, or Bush, but I do take sides on issues.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Davidson: The error you make is in assuming that there are only two sides you might choose from. I like to think of myself as an anti-utopian no matter what variety: Marxist, Capitalist, Fascist, whatever. Anyone who thinks humans and their institutions are perfectible is the enemy as far as I am concerned. That’s a side, but it seems to not fit within the narrow frame you’ve adopted. I don’t want to choose between Castro and Pinochet, or between Stalin and Mao. These aren’t the kinds of choice we have to make.
My commitment is to transparent, liberal, constitutional governments that limit arbitrary power and are ruled by law. If a government, of the right or the left, or merely a sadistic and power hungry one, runs afoul of that then they too are the enemy.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Chavez and Pinochet are the same? Wow!
Any evidence in the way of numbers killed under each? Number of times Pinochet subjected himself to free elections? WHat a joke, next you’ll tell us CHavez is just like Hitler. Attilla The Hun. Rios Montt. Suharto. THe Bothas in South Africa…Duvalier…Somoza…Batista…
December 29th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Dan O, that’s just semantics. All I was saying is that engagement in the political process means taking a position. If that wasn’t clear, I’m sorry.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
While there are ample issues I find myself not quite jiving with “al derardo” (steve) on, his exclamatory comment echoes mine: say what you want about the similarities between Castro and Pinochet (I’m sure there are plenty, but that’s someone else’s book), but throwing Chavez into the mix is just intellectually lazy–dishonest, at best. C’mon, Rockford, you make it hard to weed out your often solid observations when you cloud them with winger/stinker comments like those.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
I’m sorry…I think there’s a difference between the fact that you can dredge up Oliver Stone acting as a shill for Castro and the reality of a conservative and GOP establishment riddled with folks who served in the Nixon and Reagan administrations and actively assisted Pinochet, using the authority of the United States government to give him a pass. Anyone who can’t discern this distinction and argues for “moral equivalency” between the hypocrisy of the “right” and “left” on issues related to Latin America is clueless. It sidesteps the issue of real power of the “right” and “left” under discussion – governmental, military and corporate power on the one hand vs. freelance freaks and geeks running “Solidarity Committees” on the other. Also, Castro had far more critics on the U.S. “left” than Pinochet had on the U.S. “right”. Much of what is conveniently conflated as “sympathy” for Castro has been liberal pragmatism that simply attempted to engage in realistic policies with a long-standing, relatively stable regime that couldn’t be effectively isolated or overthrown and has used the U.S. to siphon off political and economic pressure as surely as Mexico does. You can argue with this liberal-pragmatic approach – which has never been tested because of the political cowardice surrounding the issue – just as you can debate the Reaganite’s “constructive engagement” with South African apartheid, but it’s not the same as overt support – unless you also want to tar Reagan as an active proponent of intstitutional racism. Actual liberals and social democrats mostly opposed Castro as soon as he exposed his true colors and even Nation and Progressive types have spoken rather consistently and forcefully against his human rights abuses. One of the most acute and informed journals documenting opposition to manifestations of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and Cuba over the years was New Left Review, incidentally, and Dissent has never spared Castro its calumny.
Anecdotal instances of Castro-hugging don’t count for much these days. If you want to venture back to a period in the early to mid-sixties to tar true liberals (as opposed to culturally chic but essentially apolitical kooks like Stone or the utterly silly Alice Walker) with some affection and optimism regarding Castro and conflation of the Commandante with the Cuban people – the NY Times correspondent Herbert Mathews is generally target #1 in such excavations – you land in a political terrain where most “honest conservatives” were doing their level best to smear the civil rights movement in their own country as a communist-tainted operation trying to enfranchise a group of people who weren’t really quite ready for the responsibilities of full citizenship. That is not one whit of an exaggeration. If we’re keeping some kind of hypocrisy/insensitivity score four decades back, the right loses the argument rather dramatically. Dredge up the vintage writing on civil rights from the National Review back in the days when such debates really counted for something if you really want to see the dark side of “honest conservatism”. Truly disgusting. I guess I judge people more for their opinions and morality related to things they can actually see and have direct impact on, rather than what they read about second-hand via various and often biased journalistic accounts, pro or con.
Incidentally and apropos of not much – but sorta fun – I just read some interesting poll numbers in the Harpers Index. The number of Russians who TODAY approve of the direction their country took under Stalin is 37% – equivalent to Dubya’s approval numbers during his November slump. Clinton’s approval rating the day after his impeachment trial was 73%. Kind of puts it into perspective when some chump like Chris Mathews lets us in on the Talking Head CW that Bush’s strong suit is how well-liked he is. The best news in the entire Index was that there are 200 mass protests in China every day. Another interesting factoid that has some connection to this thread is that the number of Latin Americans who say democracy is the best form of governance has declined 8% since 1996. But for Venezuelans the number is up 14%. Gosh, maybe they’ll be able to sort this thing out themselves, without the assistance of thugs from the North like Henry Kissinger and Elliot Abrams.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
“There are many such stories out there, some probably more valid than others, but I’d place a fairly sizeable bet that there’s more to them than a guy like reg would currently either be aware of or acknowledge.”
You mean sorta like the Pollyanna, clueless shit we’ve been treated to by the pro-Iraq war cheerleaders these past three years…
Frankly, you can take your fairly sizeable bet and stick it up your silly speculative ass.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:32 am
wait isn’t this where someone from the Left is supposed to stand up and say
“what about all the other dictators in the world” why aren’t we prosecuting them huh?”
I know because somehow Haliburton is making money on getting Pinochet.
Yeah thats it!
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
““what about all the other dictators in the world†why aren’t we prosecuting them huh?â€
That’s a no brainer, it’s hard to prosecute your close friends.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
countrywide mortgage…
Aeolus furs?Everhart?puttering,battlefronts!equity loans http://www.mine-mortgage.com/ Lennox awake mortgage rates http://www.info-4mortgages.com/ …
July 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Then The Clouds Will Open For Me Ringtone…
Aint Love Grand Ringtone Aint Love Grand Ringtone When You Look At Me Ringtone When You Look At Me Ringtone Love RIP Ringtone Love RIP Ringtone Grow Old With Me Ringtone Grow Old With Me Ringtone Anytime Ringtone Anytime Ringtone Steady B Loop Dub Ring…
July 20th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheresxvb
July 26th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte poker zeigen ?ab
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:55 am
rezulin lawyer rezulin lawyer
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
VideoPoker…
lien,nuance gut toggles probabilistic?Diego Roulette [url=http://www.atroulette.com/#]Roulette[/url] http://www.atroulette.com/# …
May 29th, 2008 at 3:54 am
i migliori casino online…
Once casino on line gratis play blackjack online migliori bonus casino craps in linea baccarat giochi…
July 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
partie poker net…
zumBeispiel juegos poker gratis holdem poker spielregeln french roulette polli poker juego streep poker…
July 1st, 2009 at 7:31 am
Buen sitio, encontr? una cierta informaci?n ?til aqu