Bush's comments at UN speech

[shoota]

Anybody read Chavez' speech transcript. Can't say I agree with him, but I loves me some oratory! He calls the UN worthless, calls Bush "the devil", complains about the smell of sulphur, cites Noam Chomsky repeatedly!, invites everyone to Venezuela, and talks about how most of his delegation isn't allowed out of the planes that took them to the US.

 

That's some speechifyin!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

 

This should have its own thread, IMO.

 

 

Bashing America is a regular occurance for the anti-American Hugo Chavez. He called this country a "terrorist state" and recently began agressively stockpiling arms and teaming with other Latin American countries to ally against America.

 

Does anyone know how long Chavez can remain in office as Venezuela's President?

 

Pat Robertson was right.

 

If I were Reinsdorf, I wouldn't have allowed Ozzie to bring the trophy to that American-hating POS.

Edited September 21, 2006 by shoota

[Balta1701]

This should have its own thread, IMO.

Bashing America is a regular occurance for the anti-American Hugo Chavez. He called this country a "terrorist state" and recently began agressively stockpiling arms and teaming with other Latin American countries to ally against America.

 

Does anyone know how long Chavez can remain in office as Venezuela's President?

 

Pat Robertson was right.

 

If I were Reinsdorf, I wouldn't have allowed Ozzie to bring the trophy to that American-hating POS.

This is from the beginning of September:

 

President Hugo Chavez said Friday that he would hold a popular referendum to ask Venezuelans whether they want to end term limits and allow him to run again after December's election.

 

Chavez, a former soldier popular with the poor, has fueled opposition fears he intends to increase his hold on power with suggestions he could seek indefinite presidential re-election in the world's No. 5 oil-exporting nation.

 

Returning from a visit to China, Syria and Angola, Chavez received a frenzied reception from thousands of supporters dancing, singing and waving red flags in the streets as he drove through poor Caracas neighborhoods on top of a truck.

 

"No one will have to go around collecting signatures for this; I am going to call the referendum myself," Chavez told the crowd packed into a Caracas square to mark the start of his campaign for the Dec. 3 elections.

 

"The people should decide on the mandate of the president, it will be the people who decide," he said, adding the poll on re-election would be held in 2010 if he wins December's vote

He was first elected in 1998. He is up for re-election this year. They serve 6 year terms in Venezuela. He currently has significant leads in what polls there are in Venezuela. Edited September 21, 2006 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

Anybody read Chavez' speech transcript. Can't say I agree with him, but I loves me some oratory! He calls the UN worthless, calls Bush "the devil", complains about the smell of sulphur, cites Noam Chomsky repeatedly!, invites everyone to Venezuela, and talks about how most of his delegation isn't allowed out of the planes that took them to the US.

 

That's some speechifyin!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

If Bush would have made a comparable speech in the UN, you would be one of the first to decry his 'Cowboy ways'. Bush mentions 'axis of evil', and all hell breaks loose about his reckless rhetoric will only lead to an escalation of tensions. Chavez talks the same, he gets accolades and probably an invite to the French embassy.

[samclemens]

If Bush would have made a comparable speech in the UN, you would be one of the first to decry his 'Cowboy ways'. Bush mentions 'axis of evil', and all hell breaks loose about his reckless rhetoric will only lead to an escalation of tensions. Chavez talks the same, he gets accolades and probably an invite to the French embassy.

 

i completely agree. i cant believe people here are sympathizing with this boob.

 

edit: is the woman behind him laughing?

Edited September 21, 2006 by samclemens

[kapkomet]

In my group for Strategic Management class I'm taking is a girl from Venezuela - who actually has some connections to the Chavez group that's in power in Venezuela. I have yet to talk to her a lot (about this subject), but she was saying that he's EXTREMELY popular and he does redistribute enough money down to the poor that he will remain in power for quite some time.

 

It's another reason why 'leftists' in this country love him... he takes money from the 'rich' and GIVES it to the poor. I find it amazing that he pretty much quoted the rhetoric by (insert Democrat name here) and it's all ok.

[southsider2k5]

Anybody read Chavez' speech transcript. Can't say I agree with him, but I loves me some oratory! He calls the UN worthless, calls Bush "the devil", complains about the smell of sulphur, cites Noam Chomsky repeatedly!, invites everyone to Venezuela, and talks about how most of his delegation isn't allowed out of the planes that took them to the US.

 

That's some speechifyin!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

 

Nah, it was on while I was at work, and it is always more entertaining to watch them, than to go back and get someone else's feel of them. I saw some exerpts and of course the clip of him holding up the Chomsky book in front of everyone, and that was plenty for me.

 

To be honest, the thing that surprises me is that Iran and Venezuela haven't worked together more on their agendas...

[NorthSideSox72]

In my group for Strategic Management class I'm taking is a girl from Venezuela - who actually has some connections to the Chavez group that's in power in Venezuela. I have yet to talk to her a lot (about this subject), but she was saying that he's EXTREMELY popular and he does redistribute enough money down to the poor that he will remain in power for quite some time.

 

It's another reason why 'leftists' in this country love him... he takes money from the 'rich' and GIVES it to the poor. I find it amazing that he pretty much quoted the rhetoric by (insert Democrat name here) and it's all ok.

I have yet to meet anyone, even "leftists", who like the guy. Rex was just amused by the speech, which admitedly, is kind of funny.

[southsider2k5]

Iran's President had an interesting debate last night with leading political analysts. This is no one connected to the current government, but supposedly this is a big step towards maybe having direct talks and dialogue.

 

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060921/...COUNCIL-DC.html

[Balta1701]

Iran's President had an interesting debate last night with leading political analysts. This is no one connected to the current government, but supposedly this is a big step towards maybe having direct talks and dialogue.

 

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060921/...COUNCIL-DC.html

Iran has been asking the U.S. repeatedly for direct talks for years. The U.S. has said they will only talk to Iran on the condition that Iran stops its uranium enrichment program in its entirety.

[southsider2k5]

Iran has been asking the U.S. repeatedly for direct talks for years. The U.S. has said they will only talk to Iran on the condition that Iran stops its uranium enrichment program in its entirety.

 

Which I don't have a problem with at all. The entire world has tried a million different ways to fix this situation, and the only solution Iran would have is the one thing that pretty much no one else wants, and that is for Iran to be producing nuclear materials. Russia even offered to ship them the materials, let them utilize it for power purposes, and then to take it back after it had been depleted. This would solve the problem of Iran's supposed needing more power capability, and it would also satisfy those who are worried about nuclear West hating clerics. Of course this proposal went no where, which raised all kinds of red flags for me personally.

[Balta1701]

Which I don't have a problem with at all. The entire world has tried a million different ways to fix this situation, and the only solution Iran would have is the one thing that pretty much no one else wants, and that is for Iran to be producing nuclear materials. Russia even offered to ship them the materials, let them utilize it for power purposes, and then to take it back after it had been depleted. This would solve the problem of Iran's supposed needing more power capability, and it would also satisfy those who are worried about nuclear West hating clerics. Of course this proposal went no where, which raised all kinds of red flags for me personally.

I understand your concern with that completely, but I think it's probably also worth noting that according to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is fully within its rights in developing a nuclear enrichment program for energy purposes, as long as they are open to the IAEA.

 

Now, their openness can and certainly should be called into question, as should the existence of the program itself. However, I think it is worth noting that the U.S. is insisting as a precondition for talks Iran give up something that they have a full right to do under all international treaties.

 

What Iran does not have a right to do is hide things from the IAEA (which they have done in the past) or enrich uranium beyond the couple percent 235 that is needed for energy generation. Thus far, there is still no evidence at all that they've done the 2nd step (And of course, even if they were to start taking the 2nd step, it would take them about 10 years to build the bomb).

[NorthSideSox72]

Which I don't have a problem with at all. The entire world has tried a million different ways to fix this situation, and the only solution Iran would have is the one thing that pretty much no one else wants, and that is for Iran to be producing nuclear materials. Russia even offered to ship them the materials, let them utilize it for power purposes, and then to take it back after it had been depleted. This would solve the problem of Iran's supposed needing more power capability, and it would also satisfy those who are worried about nuclear West hating clerics. Of course this proposal went no where, which raised all kinds of red flags for me personally.

I remember mentioning that Russia proposal when it was aired. I was surprised at how negative the reaction to it was from the West at first, then even more telling, it was ignored.

 

There are a few different interperetations one could take from that. None of them are particularly good.

[southsider2k5]

I understand your concern with that completely, but I think it's probably also worth noting that according to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is fully within its rights in developing a nuclear enrichment program for energy purposes, as long as they are open to the IAEA.

 

Now, their openness can and certainly should be called into question, as should the existence of the program itself. However, I think it is worth noting that the U.S. is insisting as a precondition for talks Iran give up something that they have a full right to do under all international treaties.

 

What Iran does not have a right to do is hide things from the IAEA (which they have done in the past) or enrich uranium beyond the couple percent 235 that is needed for energy generation. Thus far, there is still no evidence at all that they've done the 2nd step (And of course, even if they were to start taking the 2nd step, it would take them about 10 years to build the bomb).

 

Ah but you are missing one very key and easy step... Buying the bomb materials from someone like AQ Kahn or North Korea, and erasing a big chunk of those 10 years pretty quickly.

 

Iran has been actively pursuing a nuclear program since at least the 1960's or 70's, and I don't know about you, but there is not a chance that I believe them when they say it is for "peaceful, civilian purposes" and it is their own actions that belie that to me. If they JUST wanted civilian power, Russia offered to give it to them. Iran, under no uncertian circumstances, refused.

[Balta1701]

Ah but you are missing one very key and easy step... Buying the bomb materials from someone like AQ Kahn or North Korea, and erasing a big chunk of those 10 years pretty quickly.

 

Iran has been actively pursuing a nuclear program since at least the 1960's or 70's, and I don't know about you, but there is not a chance that I believe them when they say it is for "peaceful, civilian purposes" and it is their own actions that belie that to me. If they JUST wanted civilian power, Russia offered to give it to them. Iran, under no uncertian circumstances, refused.

But basically the idea that they could buy the actual bomb parts from North Korea has almost no impact on whether or not we should talk to them without them shutting down all of their enrichment programs first.

 

If North Korea were to sell them the tens of thousands of centrifuges that they need in order to operate an enrichment cascade, it is still going to take them years to set them up and produce enough material for a bomb. The only thing North Korea could do right now to get Iran a bomb within the Bush Administration is to actually sell Iran a nuclear weapon. If they were to do that, then the "We won't talk to you unless you stop your U235 program" demand is pretty darn pointless, because they'd have gotten the bomb another way.

[southsider2k5]

But basically the idea that they could buy the actual bomb parts from North Korea has almost no impact on whether or not we should talk to them without them shutting down all of their enrichment programs first.

 

If North Korea were to sell them the tens of thousands of centrifuges that they need in order to operate an enrichment cascade, it is still going to take them years to set them up and produce enough material for a bomb. The only thing North Korea could do right now to get Iran a bomb within the Bush Administration is to actually sell Iran a nuclear weapon. If they were to do that, then the "We won't talk to you unless you stop your U235 program" demand is pretty darn pointless, because they'd have gotten the bomb another way.

 

See now I think their motives and history are of the upmost importance when dealing with a topic that has the implications that nuclear weaponry does.

[Rex Kickass]

At the same time SS, you can't use history of a different regime (60s-70s) to justify your policy to a completely different regime with its own history, aims and policy.

 

The truth is that the Iranians have offered to come to the table - and they've even offered a parallel suspension of enrichment activity apparently - during negotiations. This is 80-90% of what we want. Except we don't want the negotiations. Otherwise this would be happening already. Our offer was "end the program, then we'll talk about ending the program." Very few states dealing with a hostile actor is going to accept that offer - and there's a needless arrogance to expect a state not at imminent threat of invasion to accept that. We are posturing like a state headed to war with Iran, and that's not a good position to bargain for security.

 

The truth is, if we were looking to be able to wage war with Tehran effectively and at minimal risk, we would give them a lot of what they ask for. Part of the stumbling block to this offer is that Iran will not give up its right to advance its nuclear technology, because it views giving up rights like that as a lessening of its sovereignty. If the US really wanted to avoid the collision course that it's on, or if it wanted to make sure that it had international help and support in a war on Tehran, it would affirm that "All states have the right to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology to serve the needs of its people." It would also accept a parallel suspension of enrichment as a carrot to sitting down at the table.

[Soxy]

It's another reason why 'leftists' in this country love him... he takes money from the 'rich' and GIVES it to the poor. I find it amazing that he pretty much quoted the rhetoric by (insert Democrat name here) and it's all ok.

Please.

 

 

Let me put this in a lovely SAT style analogy:

Leftists: Chavez as

"Righties":: Pat Robertson

 

Great open dialogue though, Kap. Really, you post is a step in the direction to this country moving forward in a bi-partisan manner. You complain a lot about partisanship and corruption, yet you post stuff like this which is completely contrary to starting an open dialogue.

[southsider2k5]

At the same time SS, you can't use history of a different regime (60s-70s) to justify your policy to a completely different regime with its own history, aims and policy.

 

The truth is that the Iranians have offered to come to the table - and they've even offered a parallel suspension of enrichment activity apparently - during negotiations. This is 80-90% of what we want. Except we don't want the negotiations. Otherwise this would be happening already. Our offer was "end the program, then we'll talk about ending the program." Very few states dealing with a hostile actor is going to accept that offer - and there's a needless arrogance to expect a state not at imminent threat of invasion to accept that. We are posturing like a state headed to war with Iran, and that's not a good position to bargain for security.

 

The truth is, if we were looking to be able to wage war with Tehran effectively and at minimal risk, we would give them a lot of what they ask for. Part of the stumbling block to this offer is that Iran will not give up its right to advance its nuclear technology, because it views giving up rights like that as a lessening of its sovereignty. If the US really wanted to avoid the collision course that it's on, or if it wanted to make sure that it had international help and support in a war on Tehran, it would affirm that "All states have the right to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology to serve the needs of its people." It would also accept a parallel suspension of enrichment as a carrot to sitting down at the table.

 

They started in the 60's and 70's and haven't quit since then. The one constant since the Revolution in '79 has been the clerics, and they sure haven't stopped the search for nuclear materials.

[kapkomet]

Please.

Let me put this in a lovely SAT style analogy:

Leftists: Chavez as

"Righties":: Pat Robertson

 

Great open dialogue though, Kap. Really, you post is a step in the direction to this country moving forward in a bi-partisan manner. You complain a lot about partisanship and corruption, yet you post stuff like this which is completely contrary to starting an open dialogue.

Touche.

 

Look, for once I'll do some research... and post what has been said and compare it to Chavez. It'll probably be the weekend, though before I can. The rhetoric is much the same, though. And that's my point.

[Balta1701]

Touche.

 

Look, for once I'll do some research... and post what has been said and compare it to Chavez. It'll probably be the weekend, though before I can. The rhetoric is much the same, though. And that's my point.

But see, there's no reason at all to do that. The fact that Chavez says something or advocates some policy or believes in helping the poor does not mean that every policy chavez advocates is a terrible thing. If Ahmadinejad proposed giving tax cuts to the highest earners in Iran, would that mean that the U.S. should immediately raise taxes on the highest wage earners in this country? If Chavez says that the U.S. is evil, does that mean that anyone who calls another country or leader evil is immediately like Chavez?

Edited September 21, 2006 by Balta1701

[Soxy]

Touche.

 

Look, for once I'll do some research... and post what has been said and compare it to Chavez. It'll probably be the weekend, though before I can. The rhetoric is much the same, though. And that's my point.

And the rhetoric is the same on both sides:

 

They're wrong, if you vote for them XXXX will happen. You don't want XXXX to happen because it completely undermines what being an American is all about.

 

You can put: terror, civil liberties taken away, income disparity, terror in there and I imagine most every single person on the campaign trail has spoken some variant on this.

 

As I tell my students: you're too smart for a cheap cop-out like that; think up a new critique.

[southsider2k5]

But see, there's no reason at all to do that. The fact that Bush says something or advocates some policy or believes in helping the poor does not mean that every policy Bush advocates is a terrible thing. If Bush proposed giving tax cuts to the highest earners in the US, would that mean that the Iran should immediately raise taxes on the highest wage earners in that country? If Bush says that the Iran is evil, does that mean that anyone who calls another country or leader evil is immediately like Bush?

 

[kapkomet]

But see, there's no reason at all to do that. The fact that Chavez says something or advocates some policy or believes in helping the poor does not mean that every policy chavez advocates is a terrible thing. If Ahmadinejad proposed giving tax cuts to the highest earners in Iran, would that mean that the U.S. should immediately raise taxes on the highest wage earners in this country? If Chavez says that the U.S. is evil, does that mean that anyone who calls another country or leader evil is immediately like Chavez?

Balta, what kind of bulls*** is this? You're cherry picking the posts and then intermingling them. This ain't about 'giving the poor' heating oil. Read my posts. I have two different thoughts in this thread, so please don't link them.

 

 

 

And the rhetoric is the same on both sides:

 

They're wrong, if you vote for them XXXX will happen. You don't want XXXX to happen because it completely undermines what being an American is all about.

 

You can put: terror, civil liberties taken away, income disparity, terror in there and I imagine most every single person on the campaign trail has spoken some variant on this.

 

As I tell my students: you're too smart for a cheap cop-out like that; think up a new critique.

I'm dumb and ignorant.

 

Seriously, yes, I see your point, but I guess my thing is - if someone would have come to the UN and delivered a speech like this in 1979, REPUBLICANS would have been pissed and come to the support of Carter.

 

It's kind of like dissing a family member - you might not totally get along with them, but you'd support them through it all. Fast forward 25+ years, and no one is really condemning it, and I think it's a rather sad testament to our times. That was more my point.

[Balta1701]

It's kind of like dissing a family member - you might not totally get along with them, but you'd support them through it all. Fast forward 25+ years, and no one is really condemning it, and I think it's a rather sad testament to our times. That was more my point.

I thought you guys had Drudge constantly open.

 

RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'...

 

One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil.

 

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

 

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

[kapkomet]

But it was ok about a year ago for Rangel to give a "death sentance" to Black Americans because of George Bush? And accusing him of killing our soldiers and 10's of thousands of Iraqis? Yea, hypocrite.