Welcome To My Page
There Hugo Again
By David Cherry
August 2005
On his television show this week,
famed evangelist Pat Roberts stated rather
bluntly that U.S. special forces should
"take out" Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez.
National media networks, awash in
airtime and lacking content, immediately seized
on the statement to fill dozens of broadcast
hours with speculation about exactly what
Roberts' was suggesting to U.S. Policy makers.
Did he mean to kill, maim, or otherwise
assassinate Chavez? Was Roberts, a devout
Christian and noted follower of such commandments
as thou shalt not kill, suggesting that
death by poison-tipped-pen was the best policy
for U.S. diplomats to pursue with their Latin
counterpart?
Roberts, of course, basked in the
media spotlight. To assuage the fears of devout
Christians everywhere, and ensure a book deal, he
promptly pish-poshed the stories by stating that
"there are many ways to 'take-out' a
leader." Maybe he didn't like the schemes
hatched on the twenty-four hour news networks.
Maybe Roberts had something better up his sleeve!
Death by cotton candy? Death by elevator
malfunction? Death by Norwegian seamstress (who
would see that coming)?
The United States has generally
avoided assassinating world leaders since the
1970's, when a small killing spree knocked off
most of Latin's America's elected officials, and
a few other not-so-friendly policymakers. In
almost every situation, the person who replaced
the deceased ruler turned out to be a real
no-good-for-nothing, leaving the shot or poisoned
or bludgeoned ex-ruler to look like a saint.
Consider, for example, the classic
case of Chile. In the battle against global
socialism, the U.S. gently (coughs)
removed elected Chilean President Salvador
Allende, allowing instead for a military coup to
install General August Pinochet. Pinochet is now
on trial for corruption - and by corruption, the
Chileans mean to say that he's on trial for
murdering lots and lots of their innocent
countrymen for good show. Its a situation that
didn't much work out for anyone but Pinochet;
and, its a situation that was repeated a whole
lot of times by zealous anti-communists based in
the U.S.
This is not to suggest that Hugo
Chavez is worth his weight in feces. Chavez is
generally a no-good-for-nothing, and has lately
teamed up with American arch-nemesis Fidel Castro
to verbally assault the U.S. in good company. He
rules Venezuela like a jerkish dictator, and he
flaunts his nation's ample supply of petrol by
operating Citgo gas stations in the U.S.; which,
as everyone knows, are among the least maintained
gas stations in the nation. Perpetuating ugly gas
stations is an act of war in some nations.
If Chavez is such a rotten scoundrel
that even evangelical Christian leaders are
calling for his neck, what should the U.S. do
about him? The answer is clear: support him in
every way possible!
It may seem counter-intuitive, but
Hugo Chavez is the man Americans want leading
Venezuela. Why? Because like his buddy Fidel,
Chavez has no real means of retaliation against
the U.S., and he has enough political legitimacy
in his own nation to rule out crazy acts of
aggression against America. Fidel spouts off
regularly against America's evil plots to destroy
the world, but the only weapon he's prepared to
unleash on the U.S. is mind-numbing rhetoric.
Chavez does have something the U.S.
desires - oil - but a man with lots of oil and no
engines is as poor as a woman leaving the mall.
And if he does get the nerve to cut off American
gas hogs? The Saudis are always willing to ship a
few extra barrels.
Most importantly, Hugo Chavez is a
man worth keeping because he's not an Osama Bin
Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. Chavez is a player
in the world game, even if he is a louse. He
knows the rules of peace, and he knows the rules
of war, and he knows how to put on a show and
shout down the evil, zionistic Americans.
But the best thing about Hugo Chavez
is that he's a bit of a socialist - and even Pat
Roberts must admit the fun Americans had fighting
them. Socialists usually fight with one hand tied
behind their back, and always with their
tongue-in-cheek. In fact, its probably the case
that Roberts doesn't want to kill Chavez one
iota; he was probably just getting nostalgic for
the good old days of American-Socialist feuding.
After all, today's terrorists are competition to
religious leaders like Roberts, whereas the
usually atheistic socialist set provides a
populous flock of potentially un-repentent
converts. What Roberts really meant to say was
that U.S. special forces should "take
out" Chavez to dinner at a nice restuarant,
for all he does to stabilize the new world order.
david.grandcircuspark.com
© Westside Productions
2005 |
|
