I agree it’s a charming interview. Alex can be quite charming and entertaining as most A-type personalities can be. But I dont mind saying Ive seen the other much darker side — in print, in public and in private– and it ain’t pretty. I much admired Alex when I first discovered him in the 80’s and I also will say he was quite generous and kind to me. Unfortunately, I found, human relationships mean quite little to them and he’s willing to shred long-time friendships as fodder to get him through one lousy cheap-shot 1000 word column.

I also think Counterpunch is a showcase for wingnuts and I dont know how mucxh of that rubbish Alex actually believes, if he believes in anything.

I think he’s a great mind consumed by petty human foibles.

One day, when Im in the mood, I’ll tell the story of how my then-16 yr old daughter almost decked the old coot during the 2000 Dem Natl Convention in L.A. It’s a hilarious tale if I must say so myself.

Bunkerbuster: you continue to be great comic relief. How can one not be amused by somone who defends Chavez, Galloway,Ahmedinejad and John Kerry all in one paragraph?? Im beginning to think ur an RNC plant. Or maybe just a potted plant.

But Marc I posted the specifically for your pleasure. Its quite a charming interview IMHO. Actually Alexander comes across as being for more jovial, friendly and humane than his at times cranky print persona

http://tinyurl.com/ng22c

or you could just forget I wrote that sentence as it is a real stinker…

So it is that anyone who says Saddam could have been contained by means other than speculative military aggression is an apologist, an appeaser, a soft-headed lover of rape rooms, a useful idiot and so on. So it is anyone who says Chavez is not any kind of extraordinary threat to his own people and certainly not to the U.S. is “licking his boots.”

I can think of no better example of this than George Galloway. In practice, his political positions are with few exceptions, intelligent, moral and congruent with middle-of-the road liberal/leftist views. More important, Galloway had a clear well-established record of opposing Saddam Hussein, when the “Butcher of Baghdad” was at the height of his atrocities.

Galloway chose to oppose the sanctions against Iraq and to speak out against the broader hypocrisies of U.S. policy in the Middle East. For that, he has acquired the label “Friend of Saddam” and a steady stream of scurrilous, unfounded, libelous allegations about everything from his bank accounts to his personal life.

There is only meaningful difference between the Saddam-baiting of Galloway and the Swift Boating of John Kerry is that Kerry was less well equipped to fight back. And we can’t ask the right wing media to stop this because it is what defines them, it’s why they exist. But we can expect people on the left to criticize a little more responsibly.

Consider Ahmedinejad. A lengthy report at counterpunch.org lays out in substantiated detail how the U.S. press has accepted wildly inaccurate and, even, fabricated translations of his comments, and passed them on as true. The man, according this report, has not called for the destruction of Israel, and has, instead, repeatedly counseled accommodation, though certainly not on terms the Kach Party or Hillary Clinton, for that matter, would accept.

Yet the allegation that Ahmedinijad has vowed to destroy Israel is an unassailed example of conventional mainstream media wisdom, much as Saddam’s possession of WMD was before the war.

So it is people on this blog, for example, insinuate that because Chavez has sympathy for Ahmendinejad, he’s part of a “let’s kill all the Jews” faction. With this kind of misinformation about Ahmedinejad and Chavez flowing freely, rational public discourse becomes impossible.

Instead, people end up having to respond to schoolyard ad hominem taunts like “ass kisser” ad nauseum.

El que escupe al cielo, a la cara te cae.

So,this is What’s the Matter with Canada.

I really don’t have much to add to the attention giving to Hugo Chavez last week for his shooting off his mouth other than the comments by Boz and Marc Cooper that all this ridiculous attention sadly sidelined Lula’s brilliant…

I’m quite comfortable being classified as an atagonist to to him and while we’re at it, to Alex Cockburn as well.

The uncritical supporters of Chavez, those who froth when I chide him, displaly the same headless mentality of the 101st keyboard war bloggers — taking politics as some sort of rugby match where u sit in the bleachers and cheer and jeer.

Try applying some historical analysis to the real world. You can start with a reading of the history of juan domingo peron.

I lived in Argentina during his final days and afterward. Unreal to watch the Montoneros and other supposed leftists plunge themselves and the country into the abyss in defense of a dead demogogue who in the end was power hungry opportunist.

As to the question from one of the dingleberries above (is it bunkerbuster?)/// Let me echo Reg and tell u to simply go fug urself. Dont hand me that half-baked crap that criticizing a public leader is somehow “irresponsible” because it encourages the Bushies to invade his country. I dont believe I am the one who styood at the UN lectern and taunted the US President as “the devil.” If you really believe the US is drawing up plans to invade Venezuela you D*** S*** then you just might consider Mr. Chavez’ level of responsibility in this matter. If such an invasion is in the works, Chavez’ speech just increased the chances by three fold. If such a horrific move were to be made by the US it would be ordinary Venezuelans who would be slaughtered … Chavez I guarantee you would be on the first flight out to Havana. Try growing up, kid.

Sergo, no me estoy convertiendo en momio. Y hace muchos anos soy much mas que maduro, casi anciano! Pero… ni a misa con los demagogos tipo Chavez.

No. I didn’t criticize Marc for that at all. I’ve been very clear that the problem is calling Chavez a thug and the gratuitous belittlement.

You’ve got people like Pat Robertson calling for Chavez’ assassination and you have to know the Cheney Bush team would love nothing more than to start another war in Venezuela.

Taken outside that context, Marc’s comments are merely unnecessary, boring, juvenile hyperbole.

But put inside the context of demonization as the historical prerequisite to U.S. military aggression, Marc’s comments become sadly irresponsible.

Does Marc doubt that the U.S. military has drawn up plans to invade and/or “assist” in the overthrow of Chavez? You can be sure those plans exist and the only thing keeping it from moving to the front burner is the war in Iraq.

And should that time come, would Marc take the same position on Chavez that he took on Saddam?

How’s that going ?

Up that to 63636640275760, Sergio buddy.