Hugo come to the land of free speech and speakes freely. What's the problem?

Hugo Chavez is a talker, and often shoots from the hip with folksy descriptions and invocations of local color, like his earlier description of Bush as "Mr. Danger", a shady and negative character in the classic novel "Dona Barbara" required reading in almost all high schools here. He is hardly a nutcake, but the right likes to neutralize him anyway possible for he is, after all, currently the most politically progressive national president. Of course, anyone who returns fire back at our right-wing regime at anywhere near the same level of the biting words employed every day by "mainstream" corporate media must come off as screwey -- out so-called opposition party sure isn't doing it. Consider how Nancy Pelosi et al. just couldn't wait to jump on the "bash anyone who opposes our U.S. global plans" wagon. With John McCain courting the far right to solidify his Republican nomination for 2008, his comments on this, and other future pronouncements, should come as no surprise.

Sorry for confusion in last posting: my reference to the Dona Barbara novel being required reading in high schools "here" is to Venezuela, where I currently live.
T.M. Scruggs
Merida, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

In response to the first comment, there is no "problem": Chavez is perfectly free to say what he wants, just as others are free to criticize what he (or anybody else, including Pelosi, Rangel et al.) says. To point out that his speech was puerile and crass isn't to question his right to make it (a not-very-subtle distinction clearly beyond the grasp most of the commenters to my post of last week). Also, why is it so hard for people to get their minds around the idea that Bush is awful AND Rangel is a blowhard AND Chavez is a buffoon (and, much more serious, a petty-autocrat)? And that some things can be true even if the Wall Street Journal opinion page thinks they are?

Chavez might be a buffon, but he is a buffon which the US helped to overthrow in April 2002. The US embassy in Venezuela was quite active in aiding the coup coalition. AND the US media quickly recognized Pedro Carmona, one of the coup's leaders, as legitimate president of Venezuela. The media helped with their portrayal of the coup as a "pro-democracy movement".
My point is that Chavez has every reason to oppose US interventionism in Venezuela, now acting again to help Chavez opposition in defeating him in a near-by election.
The attacks made by the Democrats can only be explained by their tremendous fear of being exposed by the right as being soft on international attacks on the US (it does not matter that Chavez's only weapon is inflammatory speeches at UN and quotes by Noam Chomsky). The Republicans have set the rules and Dems follow them.

"petty-autocrat"? Funny how democratically elected world leaders fall easily into the autocrat cathegory as soon as they enact policies not to the US liking. "Autocrat" is also being used to criticise Evo Morales for following up on his campaign promises and the platform that got him elected.

Chavez is a petty autocrat quite independently of whether the Bush administration says so. That the US government chooses, opportunistically and hypocritically, to emphasize this aspect of his rule makes no difference; it's still true. The guy neuters his country's judiciary and restricts press freedom and all you have to say is that the Bush administration is bad, so Chavez must be good? Try living in Venezuela and see how you like it.

As to your first point, Chavez's "only weapon" is not acting like a clown. His (extremely powerful) weapon is massive and lucrative oil supplies with which he can buy 1) international allies and 2) a constituency at home. (And the extent he uses the windfall to improve the lives of poor Venezuelans, great.) So spare me the victim storyline.

Yes, the Bush administration welcomed the coup -- a typically hypocritical move. That has NOTHING to do with the question of whether Chavez is a democrat and a good leader (in the sense of good for his people/country).

As a matter of fact I HAVE lived in Venezuela, have you? I think not. I have also done research on Venezuelan political history and I can say that democracy in that country advanced with the election of Chavez in 1998 which represented the inclusion into policy- making of previously excluded social groups which had never received the benefits of oil wealth.
Chavez is a petty autocrat
1) because you Julian Brookes expert on Venezuela (?) say so (sorry, I have not encountered any paper on the subject written by you)
2)according to you he restricts press freedom.
I come back to my first question have you lived in Venezuela? Because if you have you would know that the press and TV are quite free to critise him, his government and his policies. Ever watched Venevision? Ever read El Nacional and El Universal?
I resent the agressive tone of your posting. I am reminded of how people quickly turn to agressive behaviour when they are ignorant about something and lack sufficient arguments.

To put things in context and understand why Chavez is more entitled to criticize the Bush administration:

1)The US aided the coup against Chavez in 2002.

2)Now the US is intervening in Venezuela's elections to support Chavez opposition. The move could be compared to Chavez pumping oil dollars into the Democrats campaign to defeat Bush.
The Republicans and Bush would react just as fiercely against such an intervention as Chavez is doing right now.

Again, nobody is arguing that he's not "entitled" to criticize the Bush administration, any more than you are arguing that I'm not entitled to criticize Chavez (appearances to the contrary). I'd just ask you to try, as an experiment, to consider Chavez in isolation, as a leader of his own people, without reference to Republicans or the Bush administration. How Republicans would react to Chavez donating to Democrats is completely irrelevant to my point. Would they make fools of themselves, as Rangel did, and as Chavez did and does? I'm sure they would.

My reference to the Bush administration and the Democrats was in response to the above posting which talks about the US reaction to declarations made by Chavez. I contend the reaction is hypocritical which you seem to also acknowledge.

"I'd just ask you to try, as an experiment, to consider Chavez in isolation, as a leader of his own people."

I have stated that I am a Latin Americanist and have been in Venezuela conducting research.

Can you act upon your own advice? Because from what I have read you obviously lack a wide understanding about what goes on in Venezuela. The kind that would enable you to comment beyond superficial criticism, based solely on biased US media coverage on the subject.

You could also try for a change to read about the subject in Spanish sources and to look for analysis of the Venezuelan situation made by Latin American, as opposed to US-centric scholars.

Why all this fuss because Chavez has named Bush as the 'devil'?? Bush has been given much worse titles and by, no less, American citizens themselves, besides other foreign personalities.

I strongly believe that the media is raising the issue to such propertions simply to try to put the brave man in a negative perspective.

With more national leaders like Castro and Chavez the world would definitely be a better place to live in!