Replies

Sorry, but none of those quotes you posted say anything like what I suggested. They all basically say that "we respect democracy" and "Chaves was harming democracy". This is NOT the same as saying that a free-market dictatorship is preferable to a leftist democracy. I'd love to see a quote from the Administration even implying that. But there is none - because their position is that Chavez was somehow being undemocratic. Now, Chavez is hardly a democrat or a stickler for human rights, but the fact is, he WAS democratically elected, and he didn't eliminate constitutional possibilities to remove him. The opposition could have waited and thrown him out at the next election. Instead, they staged a coup. Look at this article for a good expression of this argument: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/

Steve Chapman is wrong on this one.

Chavez was supporting FARC, an organization which wants to run operations against U.S. interests. This was a situation where we had the right reaction. We're not sorry to see Chavez go, and make no comment about the method of his exit from power.

We need to do something about Chavez. If it means we have to play rough, and bend or break a few rules, so be it.

I have to side with hchutch on this one bb. We are at war and have said people who support terrorists are terrorists. Chavez has made his position clear, he sides with anti-Americans. We have no duty to applaud his "peaceful" revolution that now openly governs by decree. I don't know what you expect to gain by your position. If Chavez is taking dicatorial control of his country, it will not be possible for Venezuelans to vote him out.