Are you kidding me? Democrats are 'offended' by the comments of Hugo Chavez?
Really?
Emphatically, the answer to that question is NO. Rangel, Baldacci, Dodd, et al are in fact using Chavez's characterization of President Bush to pander to the alarming number of Americans unable to differentiate "patriotism" from "jingoism."
And in the end, by exploiting this non-story with moronic and opportunistic sound bites, these self-serving Democrats bolster the notion that "all politicians are liars," and reinforce that national somnolence that condones the very evil to which Chavez referred.
In 2002, didn't George W. Bush, the President of the United States, call the governments of Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea "evil?" President Bush has been hurling around that particular epithet for 5 years. We are hardly in a position to be offended that one should find its way home.
On Tuesday, our President spoke directly to the Iranian people, saying:
"...your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons.."
Compare Bush's remarks to those by Chavez:
"If we walk in the streets of the Bronx...New York, Washington, San Diego...San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.
"But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war."
So, where does Rangel get off saying:
"even though many people in the United States are critical of our president...we resent the fact that he would come to the United States and criticize President Bush."
Someone needs to remind Rep. Rangel that the UN headquarters is "international territory" and coincidentally within the borders of the U.S. Does he really believe no one should be allowed to criticize the POTUS at the UN headquarters? And furthermore, Rep. Rangel, don't speak for me. I don't live in NY, I didn't vote for you, and I didn't resent Chavez's characterization in the least. I didn't resent it because I can think for myself, and thus have no problem accepting that both Bush and Chavez are nuts.
And then there's Christoper Dodd, in perhaps the most idiotic statement of the day, who said Chavez's comments were "destructive to the United Nations as an institution." More destructive than, say, defying the will of the UN General Assembly by invading Iraq? Shame on you Sen Dodd.
Clearly, Chavez spoke without the political correctness to which Americans have become addicted, in so doing marginalized many rather astute observations that followed. Even so, excluding any references to "sulphur," Chavez perfectly echoed the form and tenor of our own president, his administration, and their propaganda machine. Perhaps some Americans were offended by it. And I suppose it is too much to hope they use the experience to learn why the rest of the world hates us so much. But these Democratic representatives who have chosen to capitalize on a predictable knee-jerk reaction of a few of their constiuents are detestable.
Surprisingly, in an atypically literate moment, John Boehner summarized the whole affair best with the expression "power-hungry autocrat."
Sadly, he was speaking only of Hugo Chavez.