This is troubling to any president attain unchecked powers. It does lead to dictatorships and worse.

You decry it when it happens on foreign soil but fail to see Bush's abuse of power and desire to expand executive control.

Bush has undermined many of the checks and balances to prevent any president attaining powers akin to a dictator.

Wade

Probably because it's such a "duh." I have never heard a single American express the slightest degree of support for Chavez. Like Al Qaeda, antipathy for this fool unites us.

Haven't you seen the "call Joe (Kennedy) for oil" ads? They love Chavez.

Some of us believe that they wish they could garner such power here. And that maybe, thats why they subvert the 2nd Amendment at every turn.

You should have read the AP's orignial headline on this story this morning.

"Chavez given new powers to renew country"

That's right, RENEW.

The reporter, some slug named Sanchez seemed all tingly over it.

Princella,

Fidel Castro, whom Chavez wishes to emulate, has been exercising dictatorial powers for decades, with little complaint from the U.S. left.

I would love to increase our domestic oil production just enough to cancel our order from Venezuela. Of course, the enviros would go into conniptions if we ever tried that.

Wade,

Why do we complain about Chavez but not Bush? Maybe it's because Chavez is the monster that the left accuses Bush of being. While Bush is accused to not tolerating dissent, Chavez has made criticism of his government illegal. He also seems to be closely associated with his country's oil industry.

Your accusation of Bush undermining checks and balances is ironic, considering that the Dems, when they were in the minority in the Senate, made the unprecedented move of filibustering some of Bush's judicial nominees, thus requiring 60 votes for confirmation rather than 51, in effect creating a new check and balance on executive power.

If Bush has undermined all those checks and balances, how do you explain his inability to open ANWR to drilling? (Speaking of domestic oil production)

If you're referring to Bush's allowing the NSA to listen in on suspected terrorist's conversations, I would point out that he informed members of Congress (both Pub and Dem) about this program, who did not complain until the NY Times leaked the program's existence.

Like Castro's death, Bush's power grab has been greatly exaggerated. (May Mark Twain forgive me.)

The reason that no one on the left is even raising an eyebrow is because, like Jimmy Carter, they've never met a third-world thug dictator that they didn't like... They're too busy demonizing our Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Even the miraculously multi-tasking Speaker of the House has her hands full trying to undermine our country's war efforts and demoralize the American public. She can't be expected to take a stand on the Venezuelan issue! Why should she, after all, when she won't really take a firm stand on the Iraq War or anything else for that matter?

Plus, didn't the Dems declare a "new spirit of bipartisanship" just a few weeks ago. This must be a manifestation of such amicable arrangement: No one is allowed to disrespect foreign governments while the United States is still standing. It's too much of a diffusion of energy. First, the loony left must fully subvert our own government. Then they can turn their attention to foreign shores...

"Your accusation of Bush undermining checks and balances is ironic, considering that the Dems, when they were in the minority in the Senate, made the unprecedented move of filibustering some of Bush's judicial nominees, thus requiring 60 votes for confirmation rather than 51, in effect creating a new check and balance on executive power.

If Bush has undermined all those checks and balances, how do you explain his inability to open ANWR to drilling? (Speaking of domestic oil production)"

Bigfoot,

Just because Bush has not been able to succeed on two issues does not mean that he has not generally been successful in interpreting the Constitution in a way that undermines our checks and balances.

"The reason that no one on the left is even raising an eyebrow is because, like Jimmy Carter, they've never met a third-world thug dictator that they didn't like..."

Babyboomer,

What about all the dictators that the Republicans helped put into power? The Shah, Pinochet, Noriega? The track record is disgraceful on both sides.

Gar Wood

They're jealous.

True Gar, we've helped put some bad men in power. But do you see us constantly supporting them today?

Why would the left raise an eyebrow? Hugo Chavez and all the leftists, take what isn't theirs, and pretend to "give it" to the masses. Like their "free" health care. Yep. "Free" health care. Yet, the people live in day to day poverty, under oppression, without basic freedoms, and no hope for a better future. But, hey...they have "free" health care, right? Chavez, Casto, Kim and all the other socialist couldn't last 5 minutes in the real world...er, unless they lived in America where they could collect free goverment cheese for heaven knows how long...

The left loves all oppressed peoples, so long as the oppressed aren't Muslim women. The left also approves of mass murder, so long as said murder is committed by dictators. After all, it's their country, and they were elected to lead.

Wade
Gar Wood

President Hugo Chavez was granted free rein Wednesday to accelerate changes in broad areas of society by presidential decree — a move critics said propels Venezuela toward dictatorship.

President George W Bush was granted frre rein when he decided to use 750 (and counting) signing statements as presidential decrees to ignore laws passed by Congress - a move critics said propels the U.S. toward dictatorship.

Hugo Chavez is, like Fidel Castro, a hero of the left. For many on the Left, and many in the Dem party, Venezuela, and Chavez's rule there, is a model to be emulated. Socialist Healthcare, a socialist, take from the rich, give to the poor tax, and retirement scheme; ultimate power given to the judiciary.

If I have a problem with some of the things the Republicans have done, and some of Bush's policies, it is not because of what has been done, but the thought of a precident occurring that will be continued under a Hillary Clinton, an Al Gore, a Pelosi, or any number of politicians on the left.

I love Citgo, but not Hugo. Hugo is a major league a-hole and is now proving that he can be a dangerous man. Why make the assumption that Democrats support him? Hugo hates Bush, but that doesn't make him an ally. I don't think we should bomb Venezuela, either. So a little country is sticking its middle finger at us. Big effing deal. He will go away eventually.

chavez is a meddlesome dictator looking for attention and looking to make his mark on pan-american regimes. this latest power-grab is a frightening turn of events.

i used to live in caracas as a student (studying the petro-economy) in the late 90's when Rafeal Caldera was still president (his greatest mistake was pardoning chavez for the 1992 coup). the undercurrent of discontent among the anti-neoliberals was just beginning to stir. almost daily, classes were cancelled or delayed due to demonstrations(complete with burning tires and tear gas). though i was hardly sympathetic, it was an experience i'll never forget - that, and the fact that my purchasing power blossomed four-fold within a week (as a result of the bolivar falling precipitously against the dollar).

The reason that no one on the left is even raising an eyebrow is because, like Jimmy Carter, they've never met a third-world thug dictator that they didn't like...

And the right never met a third-world thug dictator they hadn't put into power.

True Gar, we've helped put some bad men in power. But do you see us constantly supporting them today?

Gozer, that is an absolutely asinine statement. You _continually_ put bad men in power because the right honestly doesn't care what happens to people in other countries, as long as it doesn't impact their earnings statements. Yeah, it's nice that we're not sending support to the gov'ts of Iran or El Salvador or wherever, but the fact that you _never ever learn your lesson_ about putting thugs who say the right words into power is appalling.

"chavez is a meddlesome dictator looking for attention and looking to make his mark on pan-american regimes. this latest power-grab is a frightening turn of events."

Hmmm....sounds a lot like several dictators in the past three-four decades.

I think we just took out one of them recently..and other than the pan-american aspect, his intentions were eerily similar to those that try to obtain power via fear amongst the lowest on the food chain or on the other end of the spectrum, ie., the power hungry.

In America we have the Cyndy Sheehan and Danny Glover types that bow to their plight resulting in a causal effect.

Don't ya just love a good conspiracy theory Legion, or is that Lesion?

Your statement "You _continually_ put bad men in power because the right honestly doesn't care what happens to people in other countries, as long as it doesn't impact their earnings statements"

We'll need to consider this statement the most moronic of all time..period.

Navydad,
Always classy, that's how you roll.
As for the truth of my accusation, just ask the Neocons themselves... or read some of the articles on the front page at AEI.org.

And as for the most moronic statement of all time... wow. Have you ever heard any speesh made by any member of this administration? Ever? We can start with "greeted as leberators" and move from there...

Legion,

And the Dems keep passing laws, as long as it doesn't affect thier business. Congrats to Starkiss because Pelosi and the other big heads who run that company get to avoid the whole fiasco that will be brought about with this min wage increase. Another example of the Dems taking from other's pockets but leave thier pockets alone. Man, how eerily similiar to Chavez's idea of government. Keep people done, give them what they can't earn and they will love you. It worked well for the USSR.

Cuba. Funny, I thought Battista, with the wholehearted support of the American right, was the democratically elected thug who abrogated all power to himself and ruled in such a harsh manner that a popular revolution unseated him and placed Castro in power.

But don't start letting history and facts get in the way of your dipwaddery now.

"The left loves all oppressed peoples, so long as the oppressed aren't Muslim women. The left also approves of mass murder, so long as said murder is committed by dictators. After all, it's their country, and they were elected to lead."

A lesson you should have learned after Vietnam: America is not the world's police. We should liberate only when it's clearly in our interests to do so (Afghanistan), or when the benefits of doing heavily outweigh the costs (e.g. Kosovo).

"True Gar, we've helped put some bad men in power. But do you see us constantly supporting them today?"

Sure, Gozer. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most notorious examples. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans. My point is simply that American support/opposition to dictatorships is based on our own interests, and not on their human rights record. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans are united against Chavez...it's a no-brainer.

Gar Wood

TrueAmerican,
Politicians are politicians. How exactly is Dem pork different from the GOP pork that's been served to this country for the last decade?

I love the Looniest of the Loony Left, the LLL crowd--they are so entertaining.

For example, look at their repetitive whine about Bush "undermining checks and balances". They get such a rush out of repeating this silly statement they don't even care that all it does is illustrate their ignorance about what "checks and balances" really means.

Bush went to war with the approval of Congress. Overwhelming approval. Both parties in both houses approved. All had the same access to teh same information he did, and those who voted to approve voted with full knowledge of what the United States knew or thought it knew about Iraq. Lack of checks and balances?

Bush proceeded to act according to the Constitution and act as Commander in Chief. The framers were smart enough to know that a war can't be run by a committee---that it needs a CEO, a "decider", and so they declared the President to be that person. Lack of checks and balances?

You all whine and moan and bitch and carry on with either no knowledge or flawed knowledge, but you never let that stop you. I personally have posted many reviews of Bush's decisions, reviews by Contitutional scholars and judges, Liberal and conservative, which support Bush's actions, and you all just sit back there wherever you are and invent definitions and invent rules and think if you say something it means it is so. Your "minds" are made up, and you make it clear you have no intention of being confused by the facts.

But IF you are so concerned about Constitutional matters, prove it by being equally upset by executive branch breaches of the Constitution when they occurred between 1992-2000. Because we all know you don't give a flip about the Constitution, or the rule of law, or anything but finding some accusation you can hurl at Bush.

Because we all know you don't give a flip about the Constitution, or the rule of law, or anything but finding some accusation you can hurl at Bush.

The only reason they come here, Almiranta...

We can start with "greeted as leberators" and move from there...

Posted by: legion at February 1, 2007 11:18 AM

Hmmmmmmm...... I'm going to have to assume that you were there lesion! No? What the .... do you know about how we were greeted moron? I have proof that we were greeted with flowers, kisses, they put their children in our arms, our arms you fool, not Al-quaedas, not the insurgents, OURS! So go .... yourself, you obviously are the moron navydad pegged you as.

Sure, Gozer. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most notorious examples. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans. My point is simply that American support/opposition to dictatorships is based on our own interests, and not on their human rights record. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans are united against Chavez...it's a no-brainer.

Gar Wood

Posted by: Gar Wood at February 1, 2007 12:33 PM

Hey Gar, are you an expert on what goes on in Egypt & Saudi? Maybe you sleep with their leaders? No? Then quit acting like you know what your talking about. We could easily name a dozen countries supported by other "progressive" countries (that you dems are in love with), that have worse track records than Saudi & Egypt!

By the way Gar, we did NOT put the leaders up in Egypt & Saudi!

Bearman,

I never said that the United States put in the Saudi and Egyptian regimes. I was responding to Gozer's inquiry about dictatorial regimes that we actively support now.

"Hey Gar, are you an expert on what goes on in Egypt & Saudi? Maybe you sleep with their leaders? No? Then quit acting like you know what your talking about."

Well my high school education alone was enough to teach me that that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have authoritarian governments. I am surprised that you did not know that.

Gar Wood

The Dems won't speak out on Hugo, as this is yet, another "fault of Bush, that they pander to".
They would even blame Bush, for this latest nutcase Dictator. They have blamed Bush for all the Euro America Haters, as Bush being the ONE who has caused these jealous, radical and outrageous countries that have been on the take from the UN, etc. Isn't IT ALWAYS BUSH'S FAULT?
IT'S THE MANTRA OF THE LEFT-AS THEY HAVE NO IDEAS
OF THEIR OWN,---ONLY CRITICISM OF BUSH, WHOM THEY HATE.

Legion,

How is the GOP pork different from the Dem pork you ask? Well for one, we are not talking pork here, we are talking hypocrisy. You mentioned this
"...the right honestly doesn't care what happens to people in other countries, as long as it doesn't impact their earnings statements" so I say
"And the Dems keep passing laws, as long as it doesn't affect thier business. Congrats to Starkiss because Pelosi and the other big heads who run that company get to avoid the whole fiasco that will be brought about with this min wage increase. Another example of the Dems taking from other's pockets but leave thier pockets alone."

and you counter with
"Politicians are politicians. How exactly is Dem pork different from the GOP pork that's been served to this country for the last decade?"

Well since you asked, how are we different, I'll explain.

You see I believe one's own hard work should pay off. I believe that if I bust my butt, I should be able to live a good life. I can carry my gun, run my mouth, raise my kids, choose my own doctor, buy my own car and look down on those who have no will to succeed or heart of their own. I believe if I don't want to give my money to the lazy, I shouldn't have to give them money. I believe countries have borders for a reason, have laws for a reason and those borders should not be illegally crossed nor should the laws be broken, then the perpetrator go unpunished. I beleive in the American Dream. I believe in national pride, the American Flag, and kicking butt and taking names all in the name of freedom(regardless of how it costly it may be, because truthfully freedom should be priceless). I believe Political Correctness is slapping the freedom of speech in the face and the words "offended by" is the new "Well I don't like it, so I will take it away from everyone" mantra. I believe that things should be done, not because it makes you feel good or sounds right, but rather because it is what is best for our country. I hear a phrase everyday when I listen to the Wilkow show on Sirius and it rings so true "The day the truth becomes offensive, is the day we have lost all reasoning"

Legion, that is how our "pork" is different.

Why blame the defeatocrats? We had six years of unfettered power to nuke Chavez. Why didn't we do anything about Chavez's bloodlust then?

Also... where have I seen this before... OH YEAH:

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30rules.html?hp&ex=1170133200&en=f7bdc9f4cbb28c31&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Feh. Time to vote libertarian.

"Legion, that is how our "pork" is different."

TrueAmerican, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought relating to government pork. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Gar Wood

Gar,

You would think that wouldn't you. Talking of our freedoms, that is of course stupid in your eyes isn't it? My ramblings do consist of government pork, as you say. It is just not the pork you want served. May god have mercy on my soul, doesn't that go against your leftist views. Don't be mad because alot of Americans feel the same way I do. The thing is we are a silent majority that reliess on truth, rather than msm bias. All of the points in my "rant" are all conservitive values that I hold dear. Also if you find my response incoherent you should go back to school, because it is in plain and simple English. Instead you will just blame Bush for your lack of education, ask for more free handouts, smoke and drink it away then cry for more. If its that hard, re-read it. It's pretty clear to me and the other americans I work with that read this blog.