Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

So what is it they don't want intervention, or they do? They can't have it both ways.

The Bush administration has been very vocal about Chavez's drift into a dictatorship while at the same time condemning any undemocratic approach to resolving the problem. But they weren't hypocrites and pretend to be unhappy Chavez was toppled. Even the Washington Post finally gave an unflattering description of Chavez's rule. The New York Times praised Pedro Carmona Many countries who hold distain for Chavez were more guarded in their remarks. El Salvador and Colombia were outspoken in their favorable reaction to a transition government.

Chavez went off half-cocked, as usual, and ordered the military to fire on the marchers. They wouldn't, instead they removed Chavez from office. They asked the most visible man in the opposition, Pedro Carmona, to step into the gap. Unprepared for the unfolding events Carmona made fateful missteps that concluded with the return of Chavez.

Chavez, as usual, is now trying to deflect attention away from his disastrous presidency and with the help of the media, here and abroad, he's attempting to make it appear it was the U.S. that tried to remove him. Odd the media isn't as concerned about Chavez's support of Marxists rebels (FARC) in Colombia.

Chavez has stated he plans to be the anti-American state around which all other South American countries can rally. The Bush administration has made it clear they want to make inroads in this hemisphere. Bush has outlined an initiative to help poor nations that respect human rights, root out corruption, open their markets, and have education and health care systems.

The Bush administration seeks freedom for people of the world. The Chavez regime seeks communism for the people of the world. Obviously these two approaches are at odds.

Hugo Chavez - Venezuela

1 posted on 04/20/2002 4:48:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Cincinatus' Wife
Really there was nothing to condemn. Democracy? From a Castro wannabe?

That's not possible either!

2 posted on 04/20/2002 5:17:06 AM PDT by Bogie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
I seem to recall that one of President Bush's nominees that the Democrats are refusing to confirm was to be something like either a deputy Secretary of State for Latin America, or an ambassador to the region (somebody please help my memory here). Could failure of the Democrats to advance this nominee have contributed to inadequate attention/understanding of the situation?
3 posted on 04/20/2002 5:33:17 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Regardless of whether the Bush-men knew about or supported the coup, or didn't, they didn't condemn the coup. So, they were waiting to see who would win, which implies they would have accepted an unconstitutional outcome. True, there were reports that Chavez resigned, but this was definitely not a peaceful transfer of power - it was a coup. Bush should tell the world "Look, democracy is good, but only if property rights are respected." I don't think he (or anyone else) has the balls to do that.
5 posted on 04/20/2002 5:46:30 AM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
So what is it they don't want intervention, or they do? They can't have it both ways."

Suuurrre they can; didn't ya' know, every day is open season on the USA for every miserable country on this globe to criticize and condemn for all of their own failures and inadequacies.

10 posted on 04/20/2002 7:11:44 AM PDT by DontMessWithMyCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Chavez staged the coup. After the "coup," he was taken to
Isla la Orchila, ostensibly under house arrest. Later,
it turned out his captors were close associates.
Chavez staged the coup for two reasons, 1. to find out
who was loyal to him and who was not, and 2. to
scapegoat the United States and other "enemies of his
Proletarian dictatorship."

"Chavez is said to be held on a Venezuelan island and
has been “badly treated,” according to an interview
with his daughter on Cuban television." (MSNBC, April 13th)

"According to Fernandez's analysis, contrary to popular
understanding, the armed forces of Venezuela were not
all against Chavez. Most of those against him had
already been replaced. And when Chavez's security was
at stake during the mass demonstrations that broke out
around Miraflores, those loyal to him intervened, took
him to safer ground and provided him protection for the
following 24 hours." (NewsMax, April 18th)
14 posted on 04/20/2002 1:20:28 PM PDT by rwjst4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson