Why does condemning Chavez's statement = defending Bush?

[Beaverhausen]

I truly can't believe what I am reading here.

How are Pelosi and Rangel "defending Bush" by condemning Chavez's statement?

Saying Chavez was wrong calling Bush "the devil" in no way equals saying Bush is great, or "defending" him.

Do any of you get this?

This sounds like those on the right who say either you support the president or you support terrorists.




For the record, I do think Bush is the devil, I just think Chavez was stupid to say that at the UN.

Go ahead, call me a Bush defender.

[TayTay]

1. I don't get it either.

I think the Iranian leader is a cheap thug who is endangering the world with his blustering, no matter what Bush says or does. I think Chavez has a spotty, at best, record on human rights and free speech in his own country.

I thought their speeches sucked. I think Bush sucks as well, as does the Republican controlled Congress. I think they can independently both suck because they are threats to democratic ideals and, in some cases, to human rights.

[applegrove]

26. I agree Iranian PM is a loonie..or he is pretending to be one crazy

MF.

Chavez needs better friends. Then again..the attacks on Chavez have pushed him into the arms of Castro (who has nothing to be proud of with the type of economy he has forced on cubans long past the communist due date).

Be careful who your friends are.

[az chela]

2. OK yore a bush defender ya all

[LittleClarkie]

3. Someone on MSNBC said it best

All the name calling from the Bush administration AND Chavez makes a person long for actual adults to be in charge SOMEwhere in the world.

[az chela]

5. wow finally a rational person steps up to the plate

They all act like and sound like school yard bullies

[sandnsea]

12. That is exactly how I feel

Extremists are in charge - every direction that you look. Makes me want to find a cave.

[blondeatlast]

29. Hell YES! I do long for responsible adults to supervise...

JUst think if a responsible adult had been in charge on 9/11.

[wtmusic]

4. Why is Chavez stupid for speaking the truth...anywhere?

Seems the this country needs a little less decorum and a little more hard truth.

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. Let me reframe this

Why, with everything going on in the world today, including an administration hellbent on making torture legal, would our Democratic leaders choose a statement by a foreign leader to speak out so forcefully on?

Just to clarify, I think Chavez's statement was stupid and counterproductive. But Rangel in particular spoke out about it with a fierce determination that I have never heard him use to defend ordinary Americans against this administration.

[Beaverhausen]

9. Well I agree with some of that - but here is the problem

we have a lot of disgruntled republican voters in the country right now and it seems to me that the statement by Chavez might work to Bush's advantage, might make them swing back to supporting him.

I look at what the dems did today as a preemptive strike* against that occurance.



*Thanks to the DUer who used that term earlier today, by the way.

[Pale Blue Dot]

14. You and I just disagree on this.

I feel that any defense of this indefensible President only hurts us right now, no matter how "good" the intentions. It only makes us look weak and inconsistent.

The best move, I feel, was to either let Chavez's statement be; or, to say: "Chavez's name-calling undermines any legitimate concern he may have" (or something similar).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. The delegates at the UN didn't agree with your statement.

Or, with Charlie or Nancy.

[Beaverhausen]

10. All of them?

I'm not worried about them anyway, I'm worried about republican voters and the upcoming election. I'm worried that their support will swing back to Bush.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Why?

If they're ignorant enough to back BushCo because Chavez spoke out, they're beyond redemption. I don't think it's Chavez', or any decent person's, job to appeal to Republican voters by not acknowledging Bush's crimes against humanity.

I hope more foreign, and domestic, leaders speak out as forcefully against Bush's criminality.

[Robbien]

8. Chavez was talking to his people, just like Bush talks to his

Just politics played to their own and our corporate media is just spreading the swill.

Pelosi and Reid getting up and criticising Chavez is just playing into the RW hands. They are fools and tools. Freeperville has thread after thread laughing their heads off at what such tools Pelosi and Reid are.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Playing into RW hands?

No, this entire episode is completely irrelevant and will be completely forgotten by this time next week. Shut down your internet connection, turn off CSPAN, and go talk to your neighbours. Chill.

[DuaneBidoux]

11. The worst part is that shit like this HELPS Bush

A National can always insult his/her President but when it comes from outside, from someone who is raving, then everyone "rallies 'round" the home boy.

The secret of conservatives (and believe it or not, Chavez may "lean" left but he ACTS like a right wing wacko.) is that they help each other across borders. We need our conservatives because they have theirs.

Not only that but Chavez did not help his people with this. Venezuela had almost locked up the votes they needed to get on the Security Council and make a REAL difference helping its own people and looking at issues for the devloping world--now I doubt seriously whether that is a possibility.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Some Are Too Blind By Their Vitriol To See Their Own Hypocrisy.

For the record, I agree with you. It never ceases to amaze me how cultish some can be on certain issues.

[murdoch]

16. It's not what Dem. leaders said just today

If it was just that Democratic leaders were unhappy about something Chavez said yesterday, that would be one thing. But the Democrats have been along on the bandwagon of bashing Chavez for months, years. They are no different than Bush in this respect. And Venezuela is just one country, how many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq (or Haiti etc.)?

[KAZ]

17. You "think Bush is the devil"? If you truly feel that...

... what would you have said at the UN? IMHO, Hugo is just spouting crap which he DOESN'T believe, in order to make a point. And I applaud him. But you actually BELIEVE Shrub to be the devil. Wouldn't you act far more forcefully than just a UN speech if you really believed someone was a "devil".

[rumpel]

28. "devil" is a mythological character rooted in religion

devil=satan

Satan , traditional opponent of God and humanity in Judaism and Christianity. In Scripture and literature the role of the opponent is given many names, such as Apolyon, Beelzebub, Semihazah, Azazel, Belial, and Sammael. Nicknames include the Tempter, Evil One, God of This World, Father of Lies, and Prince of Darkness. But in the New Testament it is Satan, with its Greek equivalent diabolos (the Devil), which came to dominate, displacing or demoting other names and figures.
In the Hebrew Bible, Satan plays only a minor role as an ambiguous figure in the heavenly court. In Job his function is described as a kind of public prosecutor for God, suggesting his role as adversary may have been in terms of jurisprudence. The transformation of Satan from subordinate official to independent adversary and rebellious angel occurred during the Jewish apocalyptic movement, which came under the influence of the dualistic cosmologies of the ancient Middle East. The New Testament, grown from the same soil, speaks of Satan as the author of all evil (Luke 10:19), the personal tempter of Jesus (Matt. 4), and the rebel cast to earth together with his angels (Rev. 12:7–9). But these and many other passages in the Bible said to allude to Satan were shaped into coherent theological narratives only over time, often in response to Christian heresies.

snip
In intellectual circles in the West today the tendency is to demythologize Satan. Certain scholars argue that by the time the Old Testament book of First Chronicles was completed Satan had been transformed from an angel who questioned God to a being dedicated to subverting God. It has been further argued that this changing concept of Satan paralleled a process of demonizing one's opponents and attributing evil motives them. The Essene sect in the late centuries B.C. portrayed other Jewish sects who disagreed with them as allied with the forces of darkness and themselves as sons of light. Early Christians adopted this approach and demonized Jews who did not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. In later centuries pagans and fellow Christians who had opposing beliefs were characterized by Christians as evil and to be opposed or eradicated.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2004, Columbia University Press.
Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

See W. Woods, A History of the Devil (1974); J. B. Russell, Satan (1981); N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy (1987); E. Pagels, The Origin of Satan (1995).

http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Satan

:)

What is the difference when * calls others "axis of evil" and "evildoers" and Chavez calls * the "devil". I see none.

[Mike03]

18. It doesn't--don't worry, you are completely correct in your assessment

Polarity and duality are destroying common sense around here lately, so that you can't express opinion "A" without being accused of believing opinion "B".

Ignore those dumb shitholes because you are totally sane and rational.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Because a bunch of people here...

...believe that Chavez is God. Are you condemning a statement by God?

[mmonk]

20. Are all Americans synonymous with bush?

Clearly Chavez made the distinction that they are not. This is nothing but being scared of what the wingnuts in the media and hate radio will say. Everything else is bull or grandstanding. No one on the wingnut side of the aisle would defend a dem that vigorously.

[NYCGirl]

22. Thanks. I got accused of being a "Bush defender" today because I thought

Chavez's rhetoric (and Bush's too, for that matter), was more suited to schoolyard bullies than statesmen.

[Berry Cool]

23. Even Rachel Maddow said she has no problem with Dems condemning this.

I liked hearing that. I just don't see where it should be a litmus test of whether or not you detest Bush's policies enough.

Olbermann didn't like it either. Put Chavez on his Worst Persons list last night because he said calling Bush the devil makes Pat Robertson look sane. He explained himself on Dan Patrick's show: as much as he dislikes what Bush is doing, he retains his respect for the office and doesn't think you should call the President of the United States "the devil."

I think it's completely possible to see that viewpoint, or to think that namecalling amongst leaders of countries is counterproductive, without being a Bush-lover.

[NYCGirl]

27. I heard Rachel tonight say she had exactly the same problem with it that I

have. They all should "grow up" she said. I agree — acting like vindictive 8 year olds does not become people who are supposed to be statesmen.

[Mutley]

24. It doesn't.

Chavez acting like a third grader on the playground isn't helping us at all.

[applegrove]

25. Like President Clinton said yesterday... why not just speak the plain

truth and say "Venezuela has tried democracy and trade - and people are still very poor...so now we need to try some other policies to make things more equitable".

By acting like a goon and name-calling..he deminishes is own reality.

I did like the part about telling off Bush for acting like he could boss around the world.

But he was inappropriate with the devil thing. Hitler was a devil. George Bush is some sorta patsy puppet. Meocons said they wanted one in about 1965.