Celebritards provide a good thumb rule (sorry, link here):ÂÂ
Sometimes brevity delivers, not the soul of wit, but the sole of someone’s shoe (but not mine!). I have little doubt the Usual Suspects will flog Glenn Reynolds for this:
WHY IS THE WORLD MORE CONCERNED with Musharraf’s coup than with Hugo Chavez’s emerging dicatatorship? Because enemies of the United States, like Chavez, get a pass.
Folks who follow the link to the Investors Business Daily editorial (i.e., none of the Usual Suspects) will see that IDB decries the parade of Hollywood celebs embracing Chavez and concludes with this admonition:
But as the eyes of the world watch with loathing at what’s going on in Pakistan, it behooves us to apply the same standards to tyrants in our own hemisphere.
Fair enough, so let’s get behooved.
Update: Anne Applebaum on The New Fellow Travellers
The Doctrine of Manifest Stupidity – That it even needs to be spelled out like this shows the depths to which the moonbats have sunk.
Marilyn Monroe Doctrine vs. James Monroe Doctrine?
Exactly. Only she wasn’t quite as vacuous.
Freedom Week!!!
Last time I checked Mr. Chavez’ government hasn’t received billions of dollars in direct military and economic aid from the US government despite having more of a democratic mandate for its rule than Musharraf. Also, Chavez was almost overthrown in a US-supported coup that would have replaced him with a right-wing dictatorship in 2002. Not that Chavez is justified in suspending due process, but he is currently nowhere near as repressive as Pakistan’s current regime.
If anything, I see more of a double standard on the American Right with their apologism for supporting rightist dictators, terrorists, and death squads in Latin America during the Cold War. Naomi Campbell, stupid as she may be, doesn’t have nearly as much political influence as, say, these people.
Ah, so the left doesn’t support realpolitik? Huh.
Well then, AJB has pronounced that all is fine, and if it isn’t, you can bet your ass that it is the FAULT of the (right-wing part only) United States.
What an ass.
What’s most hilarious about this is the absolute refusal to see their own will-to-power satisfied in this farce. The whole bloody for-the-children, women-and-minorities-first, you-can’t-kill-an-idea songbook is born of the desire to fix the world, RIGHT F*^&ING NOW, because one-person-lost-to-suffering-is-too-many. And since I can see this, I deserve to have the power to fix it. Therefore everyone who stops me is evil, and their “reasons” are but cover for their bottomless desire to see the Other whipped.
Manifest Stupidity. Manifest Unquestioned Narrative. Maniefest Projection. Manifest Pride. The List goes on…
Last time I checked Mr. Chavez’ government hasn’t received billions of dollars in direct military and economic aid from the US government despite having more of a democratic mandate for its rule than Musharraf. Also, Chavez was almost overthrown in a US-supported coup that would have replaced him with a right-wing dictatorship in 2002. Not that Chavez is justified in suspending due process, but he is currently nowhere near as repressive as Pakistan’s current regime.
So, how does this translate into logic that it is o.k. for the left to wholeheartedly support murderous, dictator thugs, such as Chavez and Castro?
Are you saying that b/c the U.S. (I believe Clinton also support Musharef) supports Musharef b/c of real geopolitical concerns (i.e., not allowing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal fall into radical islamsist’s hands) it makes it right for the left to always support any dictator who brutalizes his own people as long as he is a U.S. hater (see Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, et al)?
Let’s not forget that millions more people have been tortured and died at the hands of leftist regimes (who were all fully supported – and still supported – by the left in this country [again, see Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Che, Chavez, et al]) than ever died at the hands of a rightist regime (even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hitler’s national SOCIALISTs were right, not left, as today’s left try to claim).
Why is it that all left leaning / socialist politicians and governments in the world always turn into murderous dictatorships? Whereas conservative / capitalist governments don’t? Do you ever wonder what it is about your ideology that leads to despotism?
AJB,
I’m gonna throw the same idea at you that I threw at cleo, to wit, that we are in no way married to Mushy. He’s an ally of convenience, and geographical convenience at that. If following September 11th, Bhutto was the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Bush would have offered her the same deal that Mushy got: let us use your bases and we’ll leave your affairs alone.
Our relationship with Pakistan is older than Mushy; we were AoC against the Soviets during the 80’s, and a few perceptive souls, such as P.J. O’Rourke, could smell the Islamic stink starting to gather.
Thus it would bother me none at all if Bhutto came back and rallied the country against al Qaeda. If Bush et. al is smart, he’ll try to make that happen. Because otherwise the place becomes the new Iraq.
So screw Mushy. Far as I’m concerned, the guy couldn’t general a bun fight in a whorehouse.
Why is it that all left leaning / socialist politicians and governments in the world always turn into murderous dictatorships?
Something curious about socialist/communist societies. Their supporters claim that the ideas are “scientific” or “inevitable” or “equitable” or somehow universal. Yet, when it comes down to applying the ideas in practice, the more-severe versions always lead to personality cults, as if the person is more important than their revered ideas! Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Kims of the captive part of Korea, Castro, Chavez, etc.
If the IDEA is the important thing, why do their “idea”-based societies always end up with dictators-for-life throwing people in front of firing squads?
Like the sort of person who piously assures me that Fidel Castro is a good man doing only “what’s necessary” for Cuba, which is really a Democracy because everyone votes, while then assuring me that President Bush is a dictator because the Democrats in Congress don’t have enough votes to override a veto.
How I wish I was making this up.
Because it’s not. It’s a way of talking that produces firing squads, and sorts the killed from the killers. There’s never any “applying the ideas in practice.” (Seriously — name once.) There is only killing.
No firing squad is incidental. You can’t stumble into that shit. It’s the point, the whole and only point, or it doesn’t happen.
“That is the idea” gets my vote for most accurate answer.
*despite having more of a democratic mandate for its rule than Musharraf. *
I started laughing at this comment about five minutes ago and honestly, I’m still laughing. Venezuela’s about as democratic as Ted Kennedy is a republican.
We have applied that same loathing to the tyrants in our hemisphere! Didn’t you see my awesome George W. Bush Fascio-Capitalist War Criminal poster at the last Galacto-Sexual Peace Rally and Bake Sale?
The Left considers Bush more of a dictator than Chavez himself.
Absolute. Brilliance.
I’ve never seen it summed up that clearly.
Before George Bush used his diplomacy powers, Pakistan was not only a dictatorship but actively supporting a dictatorship next door. This right now is what is called being ahead of the game. There’s a huge difference between suppressing democratic institutions in Pakistan and dismantling them in Venezuela, especially when you have nukes and Islamic fundamentalists in the same zip code. George Bush has my full faith and confidence. Naomi, I’m not feeling it.
Y’know, AJB asks the Right (as though we were they) to apologize for holding a dinner for a guy 22 years ago. Why do I suspect that even if I were to apologize for bad things done when I was 12 years old by a bunch of guys that I really don’t have a lot in common with politically (as if I had any standing to apologize on their behalf anyway), AJB still wouldn’t come forward and admit that celebrities are bad and wrong when they suck up to left-wing dictators?
Oh, right — I suspect it because years of experience have reinforced it.
Right, AJB – Like D’Aubisson ended up the president of El Salvador when the election was held – oh, wait, it was that Duarte fellow.
And the FMLN were just the local equivalent of the Boy Scouts.
The left has never seen an anti-American dictator they aren’t willing to get on their kness and give their all for.
I agree. I think the left has been giving Chavez a pass for years. Now that he is going whole-hog I hope that he’s seen for what he always was: a totalitarian communist thug in populist mantra-spouting clothing. And he’s nuts (but I find that strangely endearing…)
That said, this sword cuts both ways, and neither side is justified. Remember all the “ends-justified-the-means” mourning when Pinochet died?
If the IDEA is the important thing, why do their “ideaâ€Â-based societies always end up with dictators-for-life throwing people in front of firing squads?
Because the “Idea” is an unworkable and impractical.
Many of the problems in Central America are residual effects of the failure of Spanish colonialism, most notably social-class structure and land ownership.
RE Chavez assasination attempt: Hugo knows who attempted to kill him. It is the reason he is guarded by Cuban agents and not by members of the Venezuelan military.
“If anything, I see more of a double standard on the American Right with their apologism for supporting rightist dictators, terrorists, and death squads in Latin America during the Cold War.”
I think it is kind of like the “you hate gays so its okay to call you fags” kind of thing. The right is supposed to be anti-diplomacy, so if they make any kind of uneasy alliances trying to be diplomatic they are being hypocrites. Nuance, layers, shit like that, you know?
Point noted, steveo. There have been plenty of “our sons of bitches” propped up in the name of defeating the Dragon. Shit, Stalin himself pioneered this role during the Big Dance.
The hope is that we no longer need to do that, especially since Mushy is fuckall at fighting today’s Dragon. But tyranny of the status quo and wishful thinking might prevent such wisdom. Ire in that case will be earned.
Something tells me that AJB has said everything he’s going to say on this thread. Dump and run, and don’t worry about what happens next. Leftism in a nutshell.
Brains x Beauty = a constant
“WHY IS THE WORLD MORE CONCERNED with Musharraf’s coup”
I assume right-wingers are part of that same world. Why have I seen NOTHING from that gang on the diminutive dictator? Maybe it’s because
the Nazi is OUR nazi and that makes him ok. As for the rest of the world, they know Hugo is a paper chili pepper, but Pakistan is full of
Jihadist’s a heartbeat away from the Nuclear football.
Oh. Well if Musharraf is a Nazi then that’s different. Nazis are bad.
And here I thought Pakistanis didn’t, for the most part, even speak German.
Having that same party name? Wild coincidence, maybe.
Cap’n Ed totally ignores the Nazi angle. And isn’t that just like him?
I assume right-wingers are part of that same world. Why have I seen NOTHING from that gang on the diminutive dictator?
Why? Because you’re not paying attention.
Bush: Musharraf must restore democracy ‘as quickly as possible’
BTW, that link is two days old, HTML is not my friend and ‘cleo, as always, is an idiot.
Glib responses are no substitute for serious concern.
Oh, wait. I forgot this is PW.
I mean, really, have you ever seen more idiocy concentrated in one place? Geez, I just can’t figure out why we don’t just romp right over Musharraf.
‘cleo, you are a moron par excellance.
Why don’t you express some serious concern and we’ll see what happens.
#
Comment by Semanticleo on 11/6 @ 5:24 pm #
Glib responses are no substitute for serious concern.
Oh, wait. I forgot this is PW.
Glib responses usually follow your over-the-top vacuous assertions. You’ve proven yourself to be completely void of any understanding of basic economics. Why on earth should what you say about politics be taken seriously?
And yet there you go, still with the glib.
Wingnut fantasy: commander in chief shuts down the supreme court and beats up a bunch of lawyers.
andy – Off the meds tonight?
When your vaguely related quips fail, go random!
Thanks, Andimmy.
I’ll bet Al Gore had that shut-down-SCOTUS-and-beat-up-lawyers fantasy for a while back in ’00.
Andy. It’s a toss up between you and Ethel.
That said, this sword cuts both ways, and neither side is justified. Remember all the “ends-justified-the-means†mourning when Pinochet died?
Ahh, but again, a rightist / capitalist who by no means killed, imprisoned or tortured as many people as any leftist (say, Castro), and left his country in good economic shape and peacefully steped down to allow democracy to flourish. NO LEFIST IN HISTORY HAS EVER ACCOMPLISHED THIS. The closest thing would be the USSR collapsing without a “hot” war being necessary, but it left the economies and peoples in its wake a shambles.
So, Pinochet actually proves my point. Leftists / socialists ALWAYS end up as brutal dictatorships that destroy the country’s economy and never give up power peacefully.
Again, what is it about the leftist ideology that automatically and always leads to cruel, violent, despotism? And why don’t leftist ever question that?
Also, I would point out that the major difference between the right and left is that the right (meaning republican administrations, etc.) will support a thuggish dictator for geopolitcal reasons that they see as being in america’s best interest. For example, supporting Iraq b/c we needed to counter Iran’s influence in the region. In other words, it is done b/c the people believe it is the best choice available at the time.
This support is not because the right sympathizes ideologically with the thuggish dictator. Moreover, b/c some republican adminsitration supports a dictator in this way does not make the dictator a “rightest” or “conservative”. I believe one would be hard pressed to find a dictator a republican president has supported whose ideology fit within american conservatism.
In contrast, american leftists support dictators b/c of ideological sympathy, regardless of the value to american interests (indeed, even if such support runs counter to american interests), and regardless of the dictators human rights abuses. So, american leftists supported Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and now Chavez, even though such support is contrary to american interests and even though these dictators are/were monsters who killed, tortured, imprisoned and oppressed their own people.
I would rather be part of an ideology that will grudgingly support a bad dictator b/c that is the best choice available for America’s interests than be part of an ideology that willfully and wholeheartedly supports a monster b/c one agrees with the monster’s socialism/communism.
Ergo, I believe the right wins this argument handily. Yes, hard choices have to be made in international affairs. I wish we could simply thumb our nose and openly oppose all foreign governments that do not share our values. However, when a hard choice has to be made, the right’s reasoning has a far better track record than the left.
Unless, of course, you believe in the inevitable march of history to a socialist/communist world goverment, in which case the left’s committment to evil dictators such as Castro and Chavez is understandable and defensible.
Fixed that for you — though it undercuts the “without regard” clause immediately preceding. Sorry, but I’d have to charge for a second rewrite. ;-)
Cleo, WTF?
Did I not say that Mushy sucks? Did I not say that he could be dispensed with? Am I not enough of a wingnut for ya?
Am I invisible? Does anyone see dead people? Hello?
Yes, by virtue of being outside Teh Narrative™.