Almost none of the coverage made clear that Chavez is the democratically elected leader of his country. Bush encouraged a military coup -- which overthrew Chavez's government -- and then gave the thumbs up to the junta that wanted to replace him. Only a stirring demonstration of people power forced the military to back down (much to Bush's chagrin) and Chavez was put back in place. He's since won reelection under a vote that was less contested than Bush's two paths to glory in 2000 and 2004. How can anyone call Chavez a critic of Bush and then fail to point out that Bush encouraged his overthrow? Especially since this proves Bush is lying when he claims to be spreading democracy. You can't support democracy just when it suits you -- as Bush has done his entire presidency.
Friday, August 26, 2005
The whole Bush, Robertson and Chavez shit explained better than I ever could: