Hugo Chavez was exactly right...

[marano35]

and Rangel and Pelosi and anyone else who has stepped forward to defend G.W. Bush in the name of patriotism or anything else is just plain stupid. If someone the Republicans support, some right wing dictator or such had done the same thing, however false or inaccurate it would have been to Bill Clinton, you can bet the Republicans would have been behind him 100%. I have respected Rangel and Pelosi before but there comes a time not to be a politician and have a pair. They should agree with Chavez wholeheartedly, he told the truth and there ain't a thing wrong with that. I am not a fan of sugar coating, tell it like it is, always. If Democrats did that all the time they would be seen as stronger and would be much better off. The Republicans don't mind telling it like it is(or how they see it in their fantasies) Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and they are seen as strong because of it. Dems take notice, never be afraid to tell the truth or support someone else who does.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I'm going to have to agree.

[zeemike]

2. Me too n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. I disagree with you.

The Republicans would have blamed Clinton for the disrespect.

Funny how everyone was behind Bush at the beginning when he targeted bin Laden; Then a year later, the Republicans and the media managed to curtail the rising criticism when Bush went into Iraq; and now we're all suppose to suddenly want to vote Republican when Rove reveals his October Surprise, which is probably to start a war with Iran; but where, really were the asshat right-wingers in the 90s when Clinton targeted bin Laden for the first time? I'm sick and tired of them changing the bar whenever they get a thirst.

Enough with this duplicity. Chavez is no Fidel Castro, but you keep demonizing him and he will become bigger than Castro.

[Brundle_Fly]

10. you are 100% correct. eom

[Freedom_from_Chains]

4. As was Ward Churchill in his paper,

"When Chickens Come Home to Roost," as he was the only one who was pointing out our failed and oppressive foreign policy of the last 50 years. Unfortunately, many here could not get past his use of a strong incendiary device and like many conservatives were running around screaming, "he said Little Eichmann's, he said Little Eichmann's!"

Which I did not find surprising as he wrote the piece only a day or two after the 9-11 attacks, although no one noticed it until a couple of years later, and he was pissed. I was pissed on 9-11 also, pissed that so many people were surprised as the writing had been on the wall for the last 20 years. We just weren't paying attention so we acted shocked when our foreign policy came back to haunt us.

So when Chavez spoke the truth about how many people in the world perceive us these days we still have some people running around saying, "he talked bad about Bush, we don't have to stand for that." I say, get use to it, we are not the same country we use to be and apparently everyone understands that except us.

Sometimes I think Democrats are their own worst enemy.

[RethugAssKicker]

5. Of course he was.... He pointed out the emperor had no clothes

on .. and the "patriots" around here didn't like that a Fuh.wer.nu had the nerve to say it!

[frylock]

6. i don't think they should have endorsed what hugo said..

but they really should have just kept their mouth shut, and if confronted by the press, they could've stated "no comment."

[yppahemnkm]

7. No, not the way he said it.

When you stoop to name calling you lose all credibility, as he did.

[marano35]

8. It ain't name calling if its the truth...

a rose by any other name is still a rose. Touche!!

[Vincardog]

9. Duh like Islam-Fascist enabler? Traitor and appeaser?

Dear RW hack remove the Giant Redwood tree from your own eye before you point out the mote in mine.

[Tesha]

13. Gosh, is that true for Reich Wing talking heads like Limbaugh?

> When you stoop to name calling you lose all credibility, as he did

Gosh, is that true for Reich Wing talking heads like Limbaugh and
Coulter too? Have they lost their credibility with their audience?

C'mon, you know that's just a lie we tell kids to get them to behave.
In real life, name-calling works very, very well, and one need only
see what the Right has done with "bleeding-heart liberal" to realize
just how effective name-calling is.

Tesha

[Virginia Dare]

11. I don't have a real problem with what they said..

it was rather knee-jerk, but other than that, I understand why they had to say it.

On the other hand, the next time the idiot chimp stands up and calls some world leader a thug, a terrorist, a drug dealer or what have you, I hope they will stand up and call him on it.

Better yet, every time the idiot chimp tells a lie of any kind, or the next time he inappropriately touches another world leader or any other of a number of idiot and insane things he will likely do between now and November, stand up and LOUDLY CALL HIM ON IT!!!!

[sarahlee]

12. I think that was/is part of my problem

They jump up to slam Chavez for telling the truth while sitting down through so many Bush lies.

[KaptBunnyPants]

14. Can't say I agree...

I'm going to have to steal another poster's idea and say the best response would have been for Democrats to politely note the lack of respect worldwide that this administration has burdened us with and promise to restore dignity to the country once in power. There was never a need to defend Bush, his handlers routinely call us terrorist enablers and appeasers, he doesn't deserve that much respect.

[Tigermoose]

15. Our pathetic media will only give a mic to drama queens...

and Chavez was heard. Now, many are reading Chomsky's book and reading Chavez's speech. Unlike our Democrats, Chavez knows how to get the media's attention!