Posted on 05/20/2003 1:25:36 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A comedian who used a puppet to ridicule the Venezuelan president at the home of the U.S. ambassador in Caracas does not speak for Washington and his skit was "inappropriate," the State Department said on Monday.
The male comedian dressed up as a Venezuelan female media broadcaster and employed a large puppet wearing a red beret to represent Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the event on Tuesday at the home of U.S. ambassador Charles Shapiro.
The State Department accused the comedian of "abusing" his hospitality at the event marking International Press Freedom Day.
"The skit presented May 13 by a Venezuelan comedian during the international press freedom event at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Caracas caught everyone by surprise," said State Department spokeswoman Lynn Cassel. "It was inappropriate.
"All should understand that this Venezuelan comedian does not represent the U.S. government. He abused Ambassador Shapiro's hospitality," she added.
Relations between the Bush administration and the government of left-winger and former paratrooper Chavez have been strained and the Venezuelan leader has criticized U.S. policies such as the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).
Some members of Chavez's government have accused the United States of supporting a coup that briefly toppled the Venezuelan president but Washington has denied this.
Foes of Chavez accuse him of ruling like a dictator and of trying to install Cuba-style communism, including seeking to restrict freedom of expression from media hostile to him.
Yet another example of Newt being right about State. This dithering beaurocrates would have maintained a Cold War with Nazi Germany if the military hadn't destroyed them. These complicite fools make me ill. Chavez is an outright Marxist, and he is holding his oil hostage.
It's true.
Whike the comedien's act was innapropriate for the venue, we have to take into account it was given in a country which has no freedom of speech. The comedien was obviously protesting Chaves, and getting his message out to as many important people as he could, while he could.
Unfortunately, since Chaves IS a dictator, he'll milk the incident for as many years as he can. I'm sure we'll see more photos of Venezuelan protestors bearing more 'No Blood for Venezuelan Oil' placards, like Chavez had them do the last time during the national strike.
This happened a while back. It must have been sitting in Chavez's craw and he's demanded an apology from the U.S. They should have told him to go find a sense of humor.
He'd be in demand if he wasn't at risk for an "accident."
I'm with you. Newt did a very good job of "not" personalizing it. We are blessed to have a very popular, very talented Sec of State, and his problems in trying to steer this ship are very evident. If someone of his caliber can't do it, the problem is institutional. And of course, the problems pre-date his arrival by, oh, sixty years? So the attacks are well focused, well aimed, and well needed.
State's problems are similar to those of any institution that is not held to account. A peace-time Pentagon becomes very political, because war-fighting becomes a secondary skill. But a war-time Pentagon, led by someone determined to win, begins to find its soul again, and war-fighting skills begin to find themselves in appreciation again, if only for a season.
The same thing should apply at State. A war-time State Dept should find itself needing and promoting the kind of men that win diplomatic wars. Either that, or it finds itself sidelined and bypassed, with the important negotiations being handled by the Pentagon, or the CIA, or the President's insiders, and it will find itself being publicly criticized and mocked.
State isn't used to being pounded publicly, and held publicly accountable, but it will be good for it... builds character.
No arguements here, which is precisely why I stand up for Newt on this board against all those "hyper patriots" who look at his comments on the Syrian visit (with reports that the terrorist bases in Damascus that were promised to be closed still open, is it too early to say "I told you so?") and think that its a bash of Bush and want to crucify Newt, and us, for it, I simply don't comprehend how you could say Newt did anything like going overboard.
Fact is Powell and Boucher and Armitage have the power to make low level firings necessary in their enormous, unchecked, unbalanced Dept. The fact that Powell's response to Newt was as knee jerk and reactionary as the best politician, it leads me to believe that Powell has ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO MAKE HEADS ROLL AT STATE. From there, any criticisms of him, or Armitage, are not only entirely warrented, but understated.
If Powell isn't man enough to stand up to those government lifers, Bush must get someone in there who can for the good of the War on Terrorism and the safety of America.
I agree, but with State's history in the Cold War, with Old Europe, and most damning-their inablility to answer Newt's criticism with reason and logic rather than the politics of personal destruction, I fear things are worse than a good "tightening of the belt" by some public mea culpas might bring.
They're too defensive, call me conspiratorial, but they are hiding something.
Who exactly is making this a Gingrich vs. Powell? Other than those that demonized him for saying it, it was Newt's defenders, if you could have called them that, who were trying to focus his comments on the lack of roads being paved in Afganistan under State's authority. Your buddy Powell wouldn't even address the content of Newt's comments, only beat a strawman that because he mentioned going to Syria was wrong, that Newt obviously was bashing Bush. No data about the roads, no repudiation, no championing State Dept sucesses, just the plain old politics of person destruction. No one at that time wanted to criticisize Bush, and Powell knew it and hid behind his legs. It was a cheap shot and I have lost all respect for Powell after that and no longer give him the bennefit of the doubt in these diplomatic failures.
akin to laying down the law. How, exactly, is traveling to the foreign capital laying down anything other than moral authority and the threat of immenent force? You may not see it as a sign of weakness, but I promise you the Arab world did. If they came to meet him in Washington, maybe-but this was a dumb move and nothing since then has proven Newt wrong about this point of contention that the Powell Amen Choir repeated.
Newt had the underlying problems right, but he could have brought them to light much better. How exactly? Could he have possibly distanced the topic from Powell personally any more than he did in his comments, before and after the infamous speech? Not without changing the content of his remarks, which everyone agrees were dead on.This story has been pure spin, brought forth by State's powerful friends in the liberal media shifting the gravity of the discussion. An amazing feat to quote this speech yet never address the meat of the discussion. Now that is spin!
They used your allegiance to Bush against you. No offense, but you've been played.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.