Reply #21: I completely agree with you [View All]

[karynnj]

and realize that your post was not that they were wrong in an absolute sense, but that it would be a liability politicly in the current environment. I also see your point that because the Contras were fighting the same guy, the two are connected.

It also is likely this IS another case where Kerry was right, though this instance likely can't be used as the country is unaware of what was done in its name. His approach had to be better that the RW atrocities that controlled large parts of Central America in the 80s. The stories of the killings of the indian population in Guatamala and the murders of priests and nuns engaged in trying to help the people of Central America are horrible and are the actions of the RW people Reagan/Bush put in. I'm not white washing Ortega, but in a way Kerry's position there is not far from his Chavez position today. For Kerry's speech on Latin America earlier this year:

"The fact is that far too often, we have sent mixed messages when it comes to supporting democracy in Latin America. This Administration sat by and watched as mob violence drove presidents from office in Bolivia and in Argentina. They even encouraged a president to flee in Haiti, and immediately recognized a government named by a military junta in Venezuela. There is no question that Hugo Chavez has undermined the democratic process in his country, supported narco-terrorists in Colombia, and provided massive assistance to Castro’s repressive regime in Cuba. But when we countenance mob rule or military force to oust an elected president -- even objectionable leaders like Chávez -- we lose the credibility necessary to become a true force for democracy. In fact, our policies have been so unpopular that opposition to the United States has become a rallying point for some of the very politicians we would most like to see defeated."
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=254305

His position here parallels his position in the 80s, just as Bush's parallels that of the Reagan/Bush administration. W supported the coup in Venezuaela, just as they supported the coup against Ortega. Kerry in both cases was against the US pushing to oust an elected government. Here, he spells out problems with Chavez - in the 80s, he likely had problems with Ortega as well. Chosing to work with Ortega could be matched by the fact that the Bush people in the mid 80s were giving chemical weapons to Saddam and funding and arming OBL.

It is Bush who has an inconsistent position - democracy is the perfect solution in the ME, even if elections lead to an Islamic state in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine, and Hezzbolla members included in the government in Lebanon, but it is not the answer in Venezuela. How is Chavez worse that the leader of Hamas?