Hugo Chavez Calls Bush "the Devil" at U.N.

Bottom Line Up Front:  Hugo Chavez needs psychiatric help.

**UPDATES TO FOLLOW**

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez addressed the United Nations this morning.  Telling Americans they should read a book by the anti-American libertarian socialist and Anarchist Noam Chomsky, Chavez blasted President Bush as "the devil", blessing himself in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the middle of his tirade:

Here is the partial transcript:

I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. (crosses himself) Right here. And it smells of sulfer still today. This table that I am now standing in front of, yesterday ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the President of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as 'the devil' came here talking as if he owned the world. Truly as the owner of the world. I think we can call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the President of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism he came to share his nostrums. To try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title, 'The Devil's Recipe'.

Musing Minds has more transcript.

Here is the video:

The most disturbing thing wasn't the tirade itself, but the laughter from the U.N. delegates.  The only possibilities were that 1) they were laughing at Chavez because of the colossal fool he made of himself  OR 2) they agreed that Pres. Bush is the devil.  I found it disturbing and more than ever believe the US should not give another cent to the U.N.

More applause was given after Chavez's speech than after President Bush's the day before.  What does that tell you?

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/689877

Comments

[Johnny]

It is a disgusting reality that United States politicians have inflamed this very rhetoric as Amy has covered astutely on this blog. Not only has the DNC adopted the talking points of Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri, Ahmedinijad, etc... but (and this is an outrage) former US Presidents, while abroad, have accused a sitting US President of excess of power during a time of war. These treasonous remarks emboldened the exact remarks made by Chavez.

President Bush is a righteous man, and he should count himself in good company as one being called the devil recently - the Pope also endured the same castigations.

[grumpy old fart]

"The only possibilities were that 1) they were laughing at Chavez because of the colossal fool he made of himself OR 2) they agreed that Pres. Bush is the devil."

Or, (3) they were laughing because all great humor has at least a grain of truth.

Only a fool would believe (2)...;)

[Jay]

Amy,
I think it might have been laughter of disbelief. This flies in the face of diplomatic protocol.

[Silke]

Chavez’s words speak for themselves…he’s insane.

By the way, in his speech he said this about the UN: “Let’s be honest. The UN system born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.”

[CalPatriot]

This is too funny. The Animals’ unleashed at the U.N. In Chavez’s defense the Devil made him say that. Ha ha Was he coached by Penn?

[Leticia]

I actually heard the speech on CSN. And I was disgusted and appalled. I agree completely with Silke, this guy is totally insane, pshycho, etc. I hope he crawls back under the rock. Or who moved the rock?

[Aimz]

:-0 Big words from Mr Chavez (not)...

[Trent]

What a loon.

[Ruth]

Stange Politics has a poll asking if we should leave the UN. Over 92% say lets kick the morons out and keep our money.

[Old Soldier]

Ruth, I've been trying to second that motion for years, now. It's time to clean house in NYC and the first to go should be the UN rift-raft.

[Cobra]

Waitiminute....

Bush runs around making speech after speech about "evil-doers" and "Axis of Evil", yet we're supposed to be shocked by Hugo Chavez calling Bush "The Devil?"

LOL.

Here's some more background on the Chavez - Bush Administration relationship that is relevant.

>>>"Thursday, March 17, 2005; 9:01 AM

When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez charged last month that the United States was developing plans to assassinate him, the U.S. State Department rejected the accusation as "wild."

Last week, Felix Rodriguez, a former CIA operative and prominent Bush supporter in south Florida, asserted in an interview with Miami's Channel 22 that the administration has "contingency plans."

"A video clip provided by Channel 22 shows host Maria Elvira Salazar pressing Rodriguez to be more specific. He says the plans "could be economic measures and even at some point military measures."

The pro-Chavez media jumped on the story. Venezuelanalysis.com, a leftist Web site, noted that Rodriguez had cited the Reagan administration's 1986 bombing raid on Libya that sought to kill Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi as an example. "If they are going to do it, they are going to do it openly," Rodriguez said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41572-2005Mar16.html


I know you folks have this messianic devotion to Bush, but c'mon...if somebody was talking about assassinating ME, "devil" wouldn't be the only name I'd be tossing around.

But hey, this is Bushamerica, and pre-emptive wars, suspension of habeus corpus, torture and assassinations are all Republican Campaign platforms, I guess.

Next week: Internment Camps!
...Ooops...Michelle Malkin already wrote of book about that one, too.

--Cobra

[Zim]

This guy is not crazy and while his statement is ridiculous, he is simply using the platform to score political points at home, and possibly abroad.

Let's not forget that our country has, in the past, been involved in countless military conflicts in south and central America amd while we might have forgotten that, the people over there certainly haven't. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Chavez one bit - he is a dictator capitalizing on the people's fears for his own gains. However, those fears wouldn't have been there in the first place if we had somewhat smarter policy regarding the region in the past.

[Amy Proctor]

So, Cobra, you agree with Chavez?

[Gayle]

I've been saying for a long time that we should get rid of the U.N. entirely. Kick them out, level the building and build a Wall Mart in it's place, just to give the left something else to bitch about! This proves I'm right.

[CalPatriot]

Cobra, Clinton started in American History the First-Pre-Emptive-War culture. Kosovo (March 24, 1999) was the first in U.S. history. Do you understand that Clinton ran and was elected under a Democratic Party ticket? Hmmm? What does Pre-Emptive War History have to do only with Bush, eh? That was your argument. I also know plenty of history of Democratic conspiracies’ wrapped up in assassination, torture and of habeus corpus. So I do not understand your logic – do you have one or just one of the Chaves apologists?

BTW, Chaves, and every other country have contingent plans against the U.S.A. and every other nation. That is the nature of politicking in the world. The U.S. doesn’t want to see any leftist nation on the planet. When leaders trip over their shoelaces, they automatically, by habitual practice, blame it on a U.S. conspiracy to oust their regime. It just comes with the territory. When the Media, as you cite it, jumps all over Chaves’ conspiracies, you follow the media and fall for it.

Also, I agree with you about rhetoric, that is why I laughed at Chaves’ comments. He secretly admires Bush’s power, which I just love. He also admires American culture. He only wishes he was Bush in his shoes. Chavez wants America gone from the world scene, so it’s best for you to answer your defense of him, here. Are you anti-American - or do you just pretend? Mind you, when it all boils down he detests all American institutions including the Democratic Party, which doesn’t work in your favor. He could have well said America is the Devil and still had a clear conscience stating what he really feels is the underlying problem to his mental disability.

[Big Bang Hunter]

Cobra - you're a left wing idiot. You can't even get your Libtard talking points straight. Malkin didn't write the book on internment camps. Even a Demi-dolt should know that was FDR!

[Timmer]

AMY -

Yeah, I about fell out of my chair listening to this megalomaniacal thug...mostly with laughter, as he was almost like a Kruwschev wannabe. Only forgot to bang hid shoe on the podium.

If I had not chosen Rosie O'Donnell last night to be my Dumbass Of The Week, Chavez would have earned his title today!!!

[WK]

Land of the free and home of the brave. This is the land of free speech, however distasteful it is (and I agree it is).

Better believe people can't bash Chavez back home like that.

I had to laugh, Bush swatted away this flys*it when he said Chavez's comments did not deserve response in the media today.

[Amy Proctor]

Jay,

I don't think the U.N. delegates were laughing in disbelief. Disbelief doesn't usually make one so happy that one laughs; my reaction was one of my mouth hanging open... no smile..... and even if Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry were President I would have had the same reaction. This sick egomaniac came to America to disrespect as he put it "the American government." Nice, jerkoff, because of all the represented governments in the U.N., America is one in which he knew he could speak freely and be counted a liberal hero. Let's face it, he got his talking points from the DNC. The people I saw laughing in the video were REALLY laughing. If you want to see a dignified reaction to the rant, see what John Bolton or Condi Rice had to say.

I think this is going to backfire and probably boost the President's approval ratings. I think this probably earned him some sympathy points.

Oh, my god. Cobra justifies Chavez. Now it's Bush's fault that Chavez is a nut and that he made an ass of himself on the international. Let's see... the President is trying to lead America and fight a war.... but he shouldn't criticize dictators and terrorists (because they're friends of liberals). He can, however, if Cobra gives him permission, criticize fellow Republicans.

Again, Cobra, like liberals everywhere, are more concerned about the feelings of a socialist dictator who oppresses religion (sure to earn him brownie points) than his own president. Why support America when you can support a socialist commie? Oh, and Venezuela isn't part of the "axis of evil". True, Chavez' nutcase buddy Ahmadinejad IS, and of course it's prudent to support every nutcase terrorist developing nuclear weapons who hates America. Liberals seem to think that's their patriotic duty, right Cobra?

And exactly what part of Michelle Malkin's book are you referring to, Cobra? I'm sure you've actually READ it and aren't simply relying on heresay and speculation.

[Cobra]

Amy,

Read for yourself the TITLE of Michelle Malkin's book.

"In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260514/qid=1087608008/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-4211493-4198534?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Hello?

The next one will be "In Defense of Slavery", which I'm sure will get a ringing endorsement from many posters on this blog.

And I love this about raising the President's approval ratings while this same President's policies are destroying our military, mortgaging our economic future and causing death and destruction throughout the Middle East.
Why don't you folks just admit it? You're BUSH Supporters first, Republicans second, and AMERICANS third.

CalPatriot, The War in Kosovo, also known as Operation Allied Force, a NATO plan, (not unilateral):

>>>"NATO intervened in Kosovo to halt a humanitarian catastrophe and restore stability in a strategic region lying between Alliance member states. Despite strains, the Alliance held together during 78 days of air strikes in which more than 38,000 sorties - 10,484 of them strike sorties - were flown without a single Allied fatality."

http://www.nato.int/kosovo/kosovo.htm

Big Bang writes:

>>>"Malkin didn't write the book on internment camps. Even a Demi-dolt should know that was FDR!"

And FDR was WRONG, and the survivors of the camps received REPARATIONS, something my slave ancestors NEVER received.
I'm not afraid to admit a Democratic President was wrong about something. How about you folks and Republicans?

--Cobra

[Amy Proctor]

Cobra, that didn't answer my question. Did you read Michelle Malkin's book, or are you judging a book by it's cover?

YOu really need to get over the "REpublicans are Kool-Aid drinkers" phenom. The fact is that Republicans split with their party lines FAR more than Dems do. Look at Lieberman, then look at McCain/Graham/Warner as just one example.

I'm not going to say Bush was wrong if I don't think he is, especially to appease you, Cobra. But how about this: the next time there is a Democratic President I promise to adhere to the slogan, "Dissent is patriotic".

[Stephen Renico]

Hmm,

I see Cobra is trolling around your website lately. I ran into him at http://rightfromnewfalluja.blogspot.com/ where he was trying to get anyone to listen to him there, too.

Anyway, regarding Chavez:

1) I wonder if people are still condemning Pat Robertson for what he said a few months ago.

2) There are quite a few people who say that this silence is actually deliberate- part of a strategy for Chavez to construct his own anti-Chavez backlash. It may be working, especially after yesterday's insane ranting at the UN:

Washington Post
060306
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6060201520.html
"...The Bush administration, which has haplessly allowed Mr. Chavez to exploit the U.S. president as a political foil for years, has hit on just the right response as it has watched Peruvians and Mexicans turn the tables on the Venezuelan: It has kept quiet."

3) Khruschev denounced us in the UN with much more style back in 1960...and look what it got him. :-)

[Tim]

"Bush runs around making speech after speech about "evil-doers" and "Axis of Evil", yet we're supposed to be shocked by Hugo Chavez calling Bush "The Devil?"

Bush is right, Hugo is wrong. Duh. Looks like the socialist cavalry is out again.

"And I love this about raising the President's approval ratings while this same President's policies are destroying our military, mortgaging our economic future and causing death and destruction throughout the Middle East."

That was the single most retarded statement you have made yet Cobra. Our military is fine, except for tree-hugging hippy liberals who ridicule it all the time. Our economy, according to the FACTS, is booming, and the destruction throughout the Middle East was happening long before we got there, thanks to the Islamic murder regimes you libs like to support. You're just pissed we joined in and happen to be better at it then they.

"And FDR was WRONG, and the survivors of the camps received REPARATIONS, something my slave ancestors NEVER received."

I don't care. You apparently don't give a rat's ass about Iraqis or any other group in the Middle East that gets killed, gassed, tortured, and buried in the sand. Why should anyone give a damn about your ancestors? I'm Irish, and my ancestors were almost extinct at one point. Should I complain to Tony Blair for some reparations?

[Amy Proctor]

"And I love this about raising the President's approval ratings while this same President's policies are destroying our military, mortgaging our economic future and causing death and destruction throughout the Middle East." - Cobra

1) I live on a Basic Training post. Thousands of new recruits come through the gate and thousands graduate from Basic Training EVERY WEEK. We've lived here for 2 years and 2006 is the busiest this post has been since 2004. It's so crowded on Wed.-Fri, graudation days, that we who live on post cannot get around post because of the THOUSANDS of people supporting their new soldiers; proud parents, girlfriends, wives, children....

It's safe to say Bush isn't destroying the military. We're active duty. We have more clout than you on this subject.

2) The US economy is the best it's been in decades. Less than 4.5% unemployment, increase in job creations; If you have a problem with politicians mortgaging our ecomonic future you should write your Dem. Congressmen and Senators about Social Security and Immigration reform.

3) Bush isn't causing death and destruction in the Middle East, Cobra. ISLAMOFASCITS are. This is nothing new; they've been doing it for hundreds of years. We now have a manly enough President to do something about it.

[Amy Proctor]

PS.. Apparently Bill Clinton has more class than Cobra. That's really saying something!

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Clinton_criticizes_Chavez_for_liken_09202006.html
Obviously I think he made a mistake," Clinton said in an interview scheduled to air on CNN Wednesday night. "He's not hurting us, he's just hurting himself and his country."

[CalPatriot]

Cobra, the U.N. did not give America a permission to go into Kosovo and do what it did. There was no favor for a resolution for war. They knew Clinton was full of BS. The same argument is used by the democrats for Iraq II – G.W. Bush. In addition, there were no allied casualties, because Clinton demanded that indiscriminate bombing was the key to saving allied lives. He was correct, but his Democratic Mind forgot that his scheme actually killed 11,950 + innocent civilians by his decision not to send in ground troops. This all was accomplished by a democratic president within little under three months. Impressive I say. Furthermore, Bill Clinton’s white house ( note the use of small-caps) spin machine claimed Milosevic genocide machine murdered between150,000 – 250,000 people. He spends the rest of his life if jails while the international court could not come up with these genocide figures or anything close. This is why this is called the Chinagate War, because depositions to this secret-like case were happening at this period in American history - to Clinton’s allowing American companies to sell sensitive dual-use nuclear technology to China in return for over $40 million in campaign contributions - which was a way to deflect the minds of the populous, at that time. By December of 1999, the UN concluded that Milosevic had only been identified with less then 2000 bodies in over ten-years of conflict and most of them were political rivals – and there were no such cases for the genocide that the Clinton spin machine duped onto the world. That is why R. Clark ( his and Bush’s former administration official) actually thought about placing Clinton under arrest and charging him for international war-crimes and bringing him to the Hague, because he actually killed ten- times more people that Milosevic. How do you like your Democratic Party now?

BTW, you forgot to address the First American History Pre-Emptive strike in which was Kosovo ordered by a Democrat. So your Bush culture of Pre-emptive strike argument cannot fly in the face of fact.

Finally, I still agree with your rhetoric comment.

[politically correct]

Amy,
You don't agree with Chavez. Many don't. It is our right to disagree. Yet is seems you call Chavez a crazy liberal and an idiot simply because he expressed his opinion . Welcome to America. I do not agree with Chavez' politics; yet, I am aware and accept that he has the right to express his views. Even if it does not fit my personal decorum. Thus, I take it that those who disagree with your opinion or are angered by the mere fact you chose to express it makes you an idiot in their eyes, and therefore you would be willing to accept their opinion. Nonetheless, I applaud you for exercising your freedom of speech and press. Way to go Amy! I believe what may be behind your anger is that the majority of Americans do agree with Chavez...Bush is evil. Here's a bit of insight...liberals are not friends of terrorists...and liberals are not concerned with the feelings of a socialist dictator. It seems you simply feel it is best to label liberals as such because (1) you hate them for not agreeing with you (2) you are under the false impression that being a true American equals supporting Bush without criticism. Amy you sarcastically stated, "of course it's prudent to support every nutcase terrorist developing nuclear weapons who hates America. Liberals seem to think that's their patriotic duty, right Cobra?" No Amy. No liberal American would support any group/individual who hated America or wanted to harm Americans. Your sensationalistic rants are unfounded and plain ignorant. Again, liberals love America; they want America to truly be what it was meant to be from the beginning. A country where we uphold the highest morals, values, and laws without ignoring that we need to coexist with others; without ignoring that it takes intelligent discussion but most importantly it requires "give and take" in order to coexist. That is what it means to be American.

My opion.
Politically Correct

[politically correct]

opps
sign off
My opinion.
Politically Correct.

[Casey Kochmer]

Hugo Chavez is free and at least he speaks what he feels is right. It's sad that he might be name calling, but from the way the United Government has attacked his governments democracy, perhaps its understandable.

Too many Americans are too afraid to speak up and actually question the lies fed to us.

I think its time for us to be free

http://www.personaltao.com/tao/freedom.htm

The current government has a track record of lies, and snipe hunts for WMD's. Calling anyone who doesnt agree with policy a terrorist.

Should America just be comfortable and go on snipe hunts, or should Americans stand up and be themselves first and foremost before forcing our views on others??

I think Chavez is more about freedom than the United States Government and thats why the US Government is afraid of him.

Perhaps people are getting upset because maybe in calling the president the Devil, they are realizing America hasn't been the nicest country and we are all part of this in our actions.

Why not spread peace with peace and not war and terrorism?

[Amy Proctor]

PC,

The right to free speech is a privilege for Americans under the US Constitutional amendment, not to foreigners. He totally misappropriated the grace extended him.

As an American, I have the right to vehemently oppose his vile speech. And as a Christian I have an even bigger obligation to confront a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Please share how Bush is "evil" while Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad are not.

[Amy Proctor]

Casey, please feel free to lay out the case for the Bush administrations record of "lies". Good luck. Even the Joe Wilson charge that Iraq did NOT approach Niger for uranium has been totally debunked, and HE called a liar. I have painstakingly laid out these facts in my blog. Scroll through a few pages, read the links and I rest my case.

[politically correct]

Amy,
I never once concluded that Bush is evil but Chavez is not. I believe I even went as far as to state that I do not agree with Chavez' politics. And, when I said, "I applaud you for exercising your freedom of speech and press." I believe goes to show that I agree with you; you have every right to "vehemently oppose his vile speech." I not once mentioned Castro or Ahmadinejad. I not once stated that they are not evil or evil. Again, you are coming up with false conclusions based on the fact that I do not fully agree with you. Your false conclusion seems to be based on the fact that you dislike anyone who does not fall into your politics. I completely disagree with you when you stated that"The right to free speech is a privilege for Americans under the US Constitutional amendment, not to foreigners." Our ideal is one that it is the undeniable right to express ourselves freely. As Americans, we believe/hope all countries of the world should adopt the same ideal. Thus, Chavez too has every right to express himself freely on U.S. soil. If that right wasn't extended to him, why wasn't he arrested after his speech? Why wasn't he thrown in jail for exercising a right that is only given to Americans? I accept that your personal ideals include one that says a foreigners can not exercise this right. But in doing so, you chip away at what makes this a great country. Again, it takes intelligent discussion but most importantly it requires "give and take" in order to coexist. That is what it means to be American. Therefore, Chavez has every right to express himself freely...as you and I.

My opinion,
Politically Correct

[Alberto Barros]

09/22/06

I'm from Brazil and I'm 63 years old and about to be an US citizen.
I have many Venezuelan good friends here in US and with my American wife and I, we have the same comment:
"How dare this insane Venezuelan President who came here to criticize the President of the United States who hosts the United Nations, paying about 50% of their costs here in NYC to throw his insults at our leader". (I don’t give to this Venezuelan President our RIGHT TO SPEECH as a dictator he has in his country).
We don’t need his insults, we don’t need CITGO.
We should have a national boycott of CITGO Products.
Thank you and God bless America.
Alberto Barros

[Cobra]

Stephen writes:

>>>"I see Cobra is trolling around your website lately. I ran into him at http://rightfromnewfalluja.blogspot.com/ where he was trying to get anyone to listen to him there, too."

Hey, I'm always trying to help out my fellow Americans.


Tim writes:

>>>"That was the single most retarded statement you have made yet Cobra. Our military is fine, except for tree-hugging hippy liberals who ridicule it all the time.

Oh really? "Tree-hugging hippy liberals" like these folks?

>>>"The US army is being stretched, by its deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, into a "thin green line" in danger of breaking before the insurgents are defeated, claims a report commissioned by the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a former army officer who wrote the report, said that the army could not sustain the current pace of deployments - which was likely in the end to discourage recruitment.

"This is the central, and as yet unanswerable, question the army must confront. Vigorous efforts should be make to enable a substantial drawdown in US force levels. The army ... cannot sustain the force levels desired to sustain the momentum needed to break the back of the insurgent movement," the report says.

Mr Krepinevich, who runs a Washington thinktank, the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, also suggested the administration lacked a clear strategy.

In his report presented as "an interim assessment" of the Iraq, he writes: "Without a clear strategy in Iraq it is difficult to draft clear metrics for gauging progress. This may be why some senior political and military leaders have made overly optimistic or even contradictory declarations regarding the war's progress."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1695003,00.html

>>>"The dimming outlook for significant U.S. troop cuts in Iraq means the Pentagon may soon face a difficult and politically sensitive decision: either make more frequent call-ups of some National Guard and Reserve troops or expand still further the size of the active-duty Army, defense officials say.
That choice, already under discussion but with no timetable for decision, is looming in light of the fact that the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put the Army under enormous strain. In particular, active-duty soldiers are not getting the desired minimum of two years at home between combat deployments.
Army officials had hoped for some troop relief in Iraq in this election year, but the surge in sectarian violence, the persistence of the insurgency and the slow pace of political progress in Baghdad have snuffed out those hopes....
...The Army has been aiming to reorganize its combat forces in such a way as to increase the number of brigades available for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, but thus far it is six brigades short of its goal of 42. That is one reason why the Army was forced in 2004-05 to use more National Guard combat units in Iraq than normal; at one point there were seven Guard combat brigades there, compared with just one now.
But even now, active-duty Army brigades are cycling in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan at a faster pace than the goal of one year deployed for every two years at home. That puts a great deal of stress on the soldiers and their families.
"I don't know how long" that can go on, a senior defense official said in an interview this week. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the problem, which is being discussed behind closed doors....
...The Army already is on a path to grow by 30,000 soldiers, to 512,000. It expects to end this fiscal year Sept. 30 at about 504,000 soldiers.
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who closely follows developments in Iraq, said Tuesday the Army should have put itself on a course to grow beyond the 512,000 mark at the outset of the war rather than wait until now. Many in Congress pushed for a bigger increase in the Army, but Rumsfeld argued against it, in part because of the enormous long-term costs.
"We are in a dilemma," O'Hanlon said. "A radical new policy may be needed, such as offering citizenship to foreigners abroad if they'll serve first" in the U.S. military."

http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17225289&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

LOL...the Military's not broken, but there are ideas out there suggesting a "fight-for-citizenship" plan for aliens?

Tim writes:

>>>Our economy, according to the FACTS, is booming,"

Booming for whom? Maybe Oil executives,CEO's with stock options, and Hate-radio talk show hosts.

>>>"Even as worker output per hour has soared, fueling the kind of corporate profits not seen in decades, average annual wages fell slightly after inflation from 2000 to 2004, the latest year for which EPI's data series had figures, the think tank says. The Labor Department's employment cost index, which presents more recent results, shows post-inflation wage gains from 2000 through 2003 but losses in 2004 and 2005...
...Wages and salaries now make up the leanest or close to the leanest (analyses differ but the trend is clear) share of the economy since the government started keeping track. Meanwhile corporate profits are a bigger portion of the economy than since the late 1960s."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/careers/bal-bz.hancock03sep03,0,7586347.column?coll=bal-careers-headlines

In other words, Timmy...the average American isn't benefitting from this "booming economy", and as the housing market devalues, you'll find people making payments on houses that are no longer worth what they initially paid for them.

Tim writes:

>>>"and the destruction throughout the Middle East was happening long before we got there, thanks to the Islamic murder regimes you libs like to support."

Which regimes are you discussing? Iran, where the CIA under a Republican administration led a coup in the 1950's to install the Shah? Saudi Arabia, where the Bush family entertains Prince Bandar and other repressive members of the House of Saud? The U.A.E. where Bush tried to sell Port Security? Which regimes, Timmy?

Amy writes:

>>>"Please share how Bush is "evil" while Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad are not"

President Bush believes in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, suspension of habeus corpus, secret prisons, coerced testimony, rendition, torture
and pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations that never declared war on the United States.

Now, I'll leave it to you if you believe that these actions are "evil" or not,but I'd like you to post right here which ACTIONS taken by Chavez, Castro or Ahmadinejad are more egregious.

--Cobra

[Zapata]

Conservatives were quick to lash out at Hugo Chavez for calling President Bush a "devil," but that's exactly what Rush Limbaugh was calling Democrats only a few years ago.

It was Limbaugh in 2001 who routinely referred to Democratic leader Tom Daschle, literally, as "El Diablo." Along with "Devil in a Blue Dress" theme music, Limbaugh would carry on at length about how Daschle may well be Satan in soft-spoken disguise. Bellowed Limbaugh in July 2001: "Just yesterday, as Bush winged his way to Europe on a crucial mission to lead our allies into the 21st century...up pops 'El Diablo,' Tom Daschle, and his devilish deviltry, claiming that George Bush is incompetent." (Months later, Limbaugh started describing Daschle more as a traitor than a devil, who'd decided to "align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein.")

[john henry]

You people act like pansies. Bush calls other countires the axis of evil. Framing everything in terms of a war between Good and Evil is and has been for years endemic for the "right" Coulter calls for Clinton to be assassinated. If Kerry or whoever democrat were President there would be a near constant insinuation that he/she is evil from much of the "rightwing". Do you thing we were born a hour ago? Of course if this really is a war between good and evil Bush/the rightwing maybe right...but the rightwing wants a debate where they get to bring weapons(using this kind of rhetoric) but the other side must wear boxing gloves. Is the right whining now because someone used the same kind of language against them as they always use against anyone to their left. That bully Chavez!!!

[john henry]

You people act like pansies. Bush calls other countires the axis of evil. Framing everything in terms of a war between Good and Evil is and has been for years endemic for the "right" Coulter calls for Clinton to be assassinated. Sure if Kerry or whoever democratic were President there would be a near constant insinuation that he/she is evil from many on the right. Do you thing we were born a hour ago? Of course if this really is a war between good and evil Bush maybe right...but the rightwing wants a debate where they get to bring weapons(using this kind of rhetoric) but the other side must wear boxing gloves. Is the right whining now because someone used the same kind of language now against them as they always use against anyone to their left. That bully Chavez!!! You poor victims.

[visitor]

Probably you know about this article of Dr. Petrov and Willian Clark book
I just read (part of the article) it today and I was amazed.
I mean, it's a huge theory (may be insane). May be I am naif.

Before, reading it I thought that Chavez was a stupid man yelling to the U.S. the world superpower, even knowing that it is venezuelas first oil buyer.
Then, (I said myself) why he was doing all this alliances with Iran, a country that has nothing in common but oil.
And why he started business with China, planning refineries over there knowing that it will be more expensive to send venezuelean heavy oil over there.
And, finally that crazy speech of Chavez, talking about U.S. hegemony and then when he returned to Venezuela he recomended to sell the U.S. dollars...

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/petrov011606o.html
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47790%00

Finally, I want to be esceptical, I mean I know nothing about (macro)economics and I'm not sure if they are telling something that is true, or if it is Economic Fiction (a new genre).
I'm waiting for your comments.

[visitor]

....
postscripts :

PS: In worst of the cases, I'll say that I prefer the 'American Empire' than an Iranian or Oil Empire...
PS2: I admit I don't know a lot of history and conspiracy and crazy people exploiting it.
PS3: I just present these articles to expose those ideas, but I'm not close to defend them, just want to have your opinion about the ideas (or the authors bakground if u know). I have noticed that you have a lot of background in the whole war situation and I'm sure you'll come with interesting things.

[visitor]

an explanation? :
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/01/strange_ideas_a.html

[memyselfandi]

Amy, yes i agree with Chavez, second of all to the poster who mentioned the attrocities that the USA had a hand in DIRECTLY and INDIRECTLY in all of Latin America thankyou for bringing this up.

need i mention;
-Chile spet 11 1973
-years of support by the USA for a right wing government in Venezuela that imposed 70%+ of the pouplation in 3rd world poverty, illiteracy, non existant medical systems, and disconnection to citizenry rights like voting.
-Iran/Contra scandal
-USA support for Military dictatorships in Argentina
-Funding of the CIA in the USA through drugs PURCHASED!, purchased! in Bolivia during the contra scandal. (please view court testimony by pilot during investigation of scandal for more info. Also discussed in Noam Chomsky's book "understanding Power"

the fact is Latin America does not like the USA for the years of empovrishment that many 1st world nations, the IMF and the USA have imposed onto it. the USA does not wish to have a economic superpower like Europe so close to home, a leftist superpower so close to the USA would be a Bush's worst nightmare.

i also agree, calling someone names indirectly by stating them as being "a axis of evil" or an "evil empire" or having media outlets do the name calling for you by saying "dictator" or "loon" is just as bad as the president of that country saying themselves.

Chavez has been democratically elected 7 times, he is NOT A DICTATOR. he has a approval rating of 70%+ and when a coup was attempted by USA backed militants goes who went to the streets and fought and struggled to get Chavez back in power!? THE PEOPLE!! now that's a passionate electorate!!

that's why when you hear "el pueblo unido jamas sera vencido**" it means so much to so many people around the world

**the people united will never be defeated.

ps; yep my opinion is different to yours. sorry