Was it acceptable for Rumsfeld to call Chavez Hitler?

bigtree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-22-06 12:54 PM
Original message

Was it acceptable for Rumsfeld to call Chavez Hitler?

Did we forget WHY the Bush regime has been attacking Hugo Chavez?

Negroponte testified in a Feb.2 hearing that a combination of rising demand for energy and instability in oil-producing regions is increasing the geopolitical leverage of key producing states. "Record oil revenues and diversification of its trading partners are further strengthening the Tehran government." Negroponte warned the senate committee.

Oil was also on Negroponte's mind as he blasted Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for his increasing relationship with Iran. Chavez "is seeking closer economic, military and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea," he said. Negroponte worried aloud in his statement that Chavez is looking to dump the U.S. as an oil trading partner in favor of customers like Russia and China. Although the U.S. presently gets about 60% of Venezuela's oil exports, Venezuela reportedly planned to double their exports to China by the end of the year.

Am I the only one who thinks it's out of line for the Director of National Intelligence to be musing about oil exports and alternative fuels? Not so unusual if you already consider that all of the Bush's military adventures into the Middle East are driven by their obsession for oil as well as for power.

So we shouldn't be surprised that our Secretary of torture, Don Rumsfeld, likened Hugo Chavez to Hitler. "I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld told the National Press Club. "He's a person who was elected legally _ just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally _ and then consolidated power and now . . . (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11780.htm)

Chavez has been the object of propaganda from our government and other interests who desperately want to control where his country's oil goes. It'sapparently fine for a senior member of the Bush administration to come out and call him Hitler, but not for him to respond (jokingly) in kind.

The hypocricy amazes me, but the lack of depth and balance given to explain the history that came before Chavez's jibe is typical. That's what folks are falling for. If the administration succeeds in demonizing Chavez they will move more aggressively against Venezuela's interests in having their own way with their resources. To ignore all of this and stretch to castigate the man makes Bush's job that much easier.

Now Chavez is to be made to blame for the unaccountable animosity of Bush and his henchmen toward Venezuela, just because he expressed his deep anger and resentment in a joke. Where's our outrage at the actions of our own government? Where's the outrage at the crimes the Bush administration is accused committing in their attempts to remove Chavez and install a puppet? All for their oil greed? All for their hunger to dominate and intimidate the world. Chavez had it right behind his joke. Bush acts as if he owns the world. That's what's keeping us locked in this military maddness. Nothing is more important than stopping him. Chavez has every right to defend himself and his country. We should have been actively helping him do that, or at least eliminating the illegal muckraking our government is doing in our name.

Instead, all our party leaders can manage is this weak 'go along, to get along' act that will prevent them from ever addressing the crimes of Bush (for oil) toward Venezuela in any effective way; all for the sake of politics and an election. It's no wonder why folks are so cynical about their commitment to the issues and concerns we care so much about.