Fraudulent Republican Outrage

Once again, the Republicans are showing us just how devoid of ideas they really are. For the last couple of days, they have been expressing outrage over nothing more than a smile and a handshake.

During the Summit of the Americas, President Obama smiled and shook hands with Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez, just as he did with the leaders of the other Latin American and Caribbean nations. But for some reason, they would like for us to think that there's something wrong with smiling and shaking the hand of President Chavez. Listen to some of their comments.

Newt Gingrich -- "Everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and being with the president as proof that Chavez is now legitimate, that he is acceptable."

Senator Ensign -- "This is a person who is one of the most anti-American leaders in the entire world. He is a brutal dictator, and human rights violations are very, very prevalent in Venezuela. And you have to be careful." He went on to say it was "irresponsible" for Obama to be "laughing and joking" with Chavez.

David Gergen -- "I think most political advisers would tell the president, you know, it's fine to shake hands, hold the smiles."

Gingrich's statement is ludicrous on its face. Has he not been paying attention to what has been happening in Latin America in the last few years? Except possibly for Columbia's Uribe, Hugo Chavez is already both legitimate and acceptable to the other leaders south of our own border. No matter how much Gingrich and Ensign would like for us to believe Chavez is illegitate and a dictator, the people of Latin America and their leaders know better.

Hugo Chavez is the DULY ELECTED president of Venezuela. In fact, he has been elected twice by large majorities (which is more than can be said about the last Republican president of the U.S.). And I have to wonder if Chavez is guilty of any worse human rights violations than George Bush (who is a torturer and war criminal who spied on his own citizens). I doubt it.

Gergen is the most disappointing though, since he is generally regarded as a moderate Republican. Is he really faulting the president because he smiled when he shook Chavez's hand? How ridiculous!

In this hemisphere (and generally around the world), it is considered a serious breach of etiquette and good manners not to smile and shake a person's hand when you meet them. I guess they want President Obama (and by proxy all Americans) to be considered rude by the people of Latin America (probably because their small-minded hero, George Bush, would have acted rudely).

Haven't we had enough of being the "Ugly Americans"? Isn't it time for us to start making friends instead of enemies? Shouldn't we stop trying to force our views on other countries and start working together for the mutual benefit of everyone?

You cannot solve differences with others by acting rudely and being disrespectful. A smile and a handshake won't solve all our differences with Venezuela (or Cuba), but it is where the solution must start. When you treat someone with a little respect, he/she is much more likely to listen and negotiate in good faith.

The Republicans have acted so poorly to so many for so long, that they can no longer recognize good manners and the beginning of diplomacy when they see it. They should be ashamed.

Chavez Would Accept Gitmo Detainees

To his credit, President Obama has declared that he's going to shut down Guantanamo Bay detention facility. But to do that, he needs to do something with the detainees being held there, and there are only two options -- convict them or release them. If we have evidence (that wasn't obtained or tainted by torture), then we should convict them and put them in a federal prison. The others should be released as soon as possible.

It's the ones that need to be released that pose a problem. Many of them cannot be sent back where they came from because they would probably be oppressed (such as the Uighars from China who have been declared not guilty of any crime). The problem is that no one, including our allies, have declared their willingness to accept these detainees. They can't be released until some country is willing to accept them.

Maybe that problem has been partially solved. While visiting Qatar the other day, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez (pictured above) said he would be willing to accept some Guantanamo detainees. He told Arabic TV, "We wouldn't have any problem in taking in human beings."

When asked about the offer, a U.S. Justice Department spokesman said, "The United States has not received a formal offer through diplomatic channels to resettle detainees to Venezuela, and is not contemplating resettling detainees to Venezuela." All I have to say about that, is maybe they better start considering it and get some talks going through those diplomatic channels. I don't see anyone else making any offers.

Some are saying he's just trying to embarrass the United States, and others are saying he's just trying to get some publicity for himself. WHO CARES? I say take him up on his offer and give him as many as he'll take. If he'll actually take some off our hands, that's great. If he's just bluffing, then call him on it and he's the one who'll look bad.

We really can't afford to ignore any offer received. And so far, this is the only offer we've had. I realize many Americans don't like Chavez, but that's a poor reason to turn down any offer of help. Every day that Guantanamo stays open makes America look worse.

Chavez Threatens To Cut Off Oil To U.S.

Venezuela recently decided that the oil taken from their country should benefit the people of Venezuela, and not just the robber barons of the world's largest oil companies. To that end, Venezuela nationalized their oil industry.

Chevron (US), Total (France), BP (England) and StatoilHydro (Norway) saw the handwriting on the wall, and renogiated their contracts with Venezuela. They continue to make money there, only now as minority partners.

But the giant U.S. oil company Exxon Mobil decided they weren't going to go along with it. Rather than being happy with a slice of the pie, they decided they wanted to keep the whole thing. They have gone after Venezuelan oil-assets in U.S., British and Dutch courts. A British court has already temporarily frozen around $12 billion in Venezuelan assets.

I guess Exxon Mobil thinks if they can freeze enough of Venezuela's assets in foreign countries, then they can get them to back down on the nationalization and let Exxon-Mobil have their oil. This could turn out to be a huge mistake.

Hugo Chavez is angry at the court actions, and is threatening to cut off all Venezuelan oil coming to the United States. Chavez said, "I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't send one drop of oil to the empire of the United States. The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us."

This is a serious threat. Venezuela currently supplies 12 % of United States oil imports (1.23 million barrels a day). It would be a serious blow to the U.S. economy to immediately have 12% of our imports cut off. It would probably mean oil and gas shortages here. For sure, it would mean much higher prices. Even if we were able to make up the shortage by buying elsewhere, it would be at a much higher price per barrel.

Some of you may be saying Venezuela couldn't do it. We are the number one buyer of Venezuelan oil, and they need us to buy that oil. NOT TRUE! China (and others) would immediately step in and buy that oil. Venezuela would have no problem selling the oil. The sad fact is that we need Venezuela's oil more than they need to sell it to us.

We can't blame Chavez for the situation we're in. Even Exxon Mobil only gets part of the blame (as greedy as they are). Most of the blame must go to the Republican leadership that blocked all efforts to reduce our dependence on oil. They were more interested in protecting the oil interests than in protecting the American economy.

If the Republican leaders had just initiated policies that resulted in a 10% less dependence on oil, then Chavez's threat would have little sting (not to mention we'd be on our way to solving global climactic change).

Putin And Chavez - Bush Wrong About Both

There were two elections over the weekend -- one in Russia and another in Venezuela. Both showed just what a poor judge of character that George Bush is.

Years ago, Bush told us he had looked into Putin's eyes and saw a democratic leader who would lead Russia into establishment of a Western-style democracy. Last weekend, we saw that illusion go up in smoke.

Putin, who couldn't run for another term as Russia's president, is now in the process of establishing himself as the Prime Minister (a position that has no term limit). In an election that most foreign observors say was rigged by ballot-box stuffing, Putin's political party has captured 70% of the vote.

That means Putin will keep his hands on the reins of power in Russia. By switching his official title, Putin has done away with the term limit problem and established himself as Russia's new and permanent dictator. The short Russian experiment in democracy is over.

Just the opposite is true in Venezuela. For years, Bush has been trying to convince us that Chavez is a dictator there, even though he has twice been elected by the people (the last time with a majority of more than 60%).

Last weekend, Venezuela had an election in which Chavez wanted to change the constitution and abolish his term limits. He lost that effort in a very close election. The difference was about 1%. That could have easily been overcome by a "dictator" controlling the election, but it wasn't.

Venezuela had a free and fair election, and Chavez graciously accepted defeat of his proposed changes to the constitution. It gives credence to the fact that Chavez is the elected leader of a free and democratic country.

Bush told us that Putin was a democrat and Chavez was a dictator. He was wrong about both men.

Clinton, Obama & Chavez

After the so-called debate last night, it seems that a big brouhaha has developed between the Clinton and Obama camps. Obama said he would be willing to talk to leaders such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Clinton says Obama is wrong, and that to talk to such "dictators" is to be used by them.

What nonsense! I'm going to have to agree with Obama on this one. How can you ever settle your differences with someone if you're not willing to talk to them? Clinton sounds like George Bush, who's the king of refusing to talk to anyone who disagrees with him.

It's time for us to stop demanding that every country agree with us or be treated like an enemy. That kind of thinking will never get problems solved, but it will create a whole host of enemies. Whatever happened to diplomacy and good old-fashioned decency?

And while I'm on this subject, what's the deal with everyone calling Hugo Chavez a "dictator"? He was elected and re-elected by a popular vote of the people of Venezuela. Furthermore, he was elected by an overwhelming majority, which is more than George Bush (who didn't even have a majority in 2000) can say!

The people of Venezuela have the right to elect whoever they want, whether we like it or not. Just because they elected someone a lot of Americans don't like doesn't give us the right to call him a "dictator".

For our leaders to now refuse to talk to him sounds a lot like a kid who takes his ball and goes home because he wasn't allowed to be quarterback. Maybe it's time for Bush and Clinton to start acting like adults.

Talking with those who disagree with you is not a bad thing -- it's called diplomacy, and it works!