Rummy is Funny

[bascule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_chavez

 

"We saw dictatorships there. And then we saw most of those countries, with the exception of Cuba, for the most part move towards democracies," he said. "We also saw corruption in that part of the world. And corruption is something that is corrosive of democracy."

 

Hmm, pot calling the kettle black?

 

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."

 

He was elected legally. Therefore, he is Hitler. Q.E.D.

[-Demosthenes-]

He was elected legally. Therefore, he is Hitler. Q.E.D.

 

Obvious fallacy, but I do wonder about the rather odd way those who criticize Chávez in the press end up in prison...

[Sisyphus]

I heard he likes cupcakes, too. You know, [solemnly thoughtful]Hitler liked cupcakes.[/solemnly thoughtful]

[pcs]

He was elected legally. Therefore, he is Hitler. Q.E.D.

 

I'm pretty sure you read the rest of that quote. After all, you posted it.

[Sisyphus]

I'm pretty sure you read the rest of that quote. After all, you posted it.

 

What makes Chavez=Hitler, then? Do you know of a great friendship between Hitler and Castro that defies time and space? Or perhaps you're just going on the great love Nazis and Communists had for one another? As far as I can see, the argument goes something like this:

 

We don't like Hitler. It's something everybody can agree on. Thus, he has ceased to be an actual historical figure that we can actually, you know, LEARN from, and become instead just shorthand for "evil incarnate," along with everything ever associated with him. Thus, if I can find something you and Hitler have in common (even getting elected legally, apparently), then you, too, become evil incarnate in the eyes of a lot of very stupid people. Thus we have stuff like Rummy slipping in Hitler references when talking about Chavez and giant Bush banners with Hitler mustaches.

[pcs]

What makes Chavez=Hitler, then?

 

Presumably their dictatorial style of governance.

[Sisyphus]

Well, alright then. Let's talk about Chavez as evil dictator. I believe he's made it illegal to slanderize government officials, a law which it seems could very easily be manipulated to pose a grave threat to a free and open press. Fair enough. Anything else?

 

EDIT: It seems there still is quite a bit of dissent there, though. Chavez seems to mostly just respond with Bush-like accusations of unpatriotism towards the dissenters. The horror!

 

EDIT again: Wikipedia has a pretty fair description of his critics' complaints:

 

Chávez is a deeply disputed personality' date=' both in Venezuela and abroad. His most steadfast domestic opponents state that Chávez is a dangerous militarist and authoritarian revolutionary who poses a fundamental threat to Venezuelan democracy. The opposition also reports that both poverty and unemployment figures under Chávez have not seen significant improvements and that official corruption under his government continues to be rampant,[70'][71] and point to the 1% drop in Venezuela's per-capita GDP under Chávez. Opposition figures also cite the many public hospitals that lack even basic medicine and hygenic supplies, while others describe Chávez as a demagogue and his supporters as a personality cult, intended to help Chávez achieve power and adulation. For example, Chávez critics question the motives behind the Bolivarian Missions' regular cash and in-kind payments to the millions of poor Venezuelans enrolling in their social programs. They worry that receiving benefits from many Missions simultaneously will corrupt their work ethic and predispose them to support Chávez. However, the particular claims about the inefficacy of government programs that have eradicated poverty, illiteracy and ill health are also made specifically through media owned by the very upper class of Venezuela, and are strongly disputed by the lower classes who are the recipients of these government initiatives and constitute the bulk of the Chavista movement.

 

The opposition has also claimed that the Chávez government has engaged in extensive electoral fraud, especially during the 2000 and 2004 elections, and has reported that many anti-Chávez activists are detained as political prisoners.[9] More sympathetic criticisms arise from reports that Chávez is not fulfilling his major campaign pledges with respect to labor and land reform.[10][72][73] Many claim that the beaureaucratic setup Chávez inherited has strongly corrupted roots, and are subversive or inefficient elements in the programs for social change. Abroad, sources in the Western mainstream news media have reported that Chávez is a confrontational ideologue[74] who willingly harbors, funds, and trains terrorists in Venezuela and insurgents abroad.[75][76]

 

The human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous human rights violations under Chávez.[5][6] Scores of deaths and hundreds of injuries inflicted during both opposition and pro-Chávez demonstrations have resulted in little investigative action taken on the part of Chávez. These organizations have also made allegations of ill treatment of detainees, torture, and censorship by the police and military. However, there is also much repression of lower class Chávez supporters and even social workers, and the local police act on behalf of the local mayors, many of whom are wealthy anti-Chavistas, rather than the central government. The government is currently attempting to nationalize police to eliminate local corruption. Meanwhile, relatives of victims who were killed in the April 11, 2002 clashes have filed a case against Chávez and others at the International Criminal Court, stating that Chávez is legally complicit in crimes against humanity. A ruling has yet to be reached.[77]

 

Chávez has also made controversial statements. In January 2006, he stated that “[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world...”[11] The Simon Wiesenthal Center omitted the reference to Bolívar without ellipsis, stated that Chávez was referring to Jews, and denounced the remarks as antisemitic by way of his allusions to wealth. Meanwhile, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela all defended Chávez, stating that he was speaking not of Jews, but of South America's white oligarchy. Why Chávez would refer to this oligarchy as the killers of Christ is unclear, and is not addressed by any of these groups; but would seem to be a reference to the Roman government, whose soldiers were directly involved in the torture and execution of Christ, and from which most western European nations are descended.

[-Demosthenes-]

Well, alright then. Let's talk about Chavez as evil dictator. I believe he's made it illegal to slanderize government officials, a law which it seems could very easily be manipulated to pose a grave threat to a free and open press. Fair enough. Anything else?

 

It's not so much slander as any criticism. The freedom of the press is severely hindered, and with it all things that depend on the press such as protest.

[Sisyphus]

The law says slander. Whether or not its been abused (and it probably has) is another question. But there still certainly are protests, which for some reason I don't think you would find in Nazi Germany...

 

Anyway, my point was to show how ridiculous it is to compare everybody you don't like to Hitler. Hitler's main crime was in creating a philosophy that required:

 

a) constant external conflict, the need to literally conquer the world, and

 

b) the extreme persecution of large, innocent segments of the populace, to the point of rounding them up and killing them

 

Chavez, for whatever faults he has, his clearly entirely innocent of anything like that, and therefore comparing him to Hitler is very, very stupid.

[pcs]

The law says slander. Whether or not its been abused (and it probably has) is another question. But there still certainly are protests, which for some reason I don't think you would find in Nazi Germany...

 

Protest and dissent didn't die overnight in Nazi Germany. Hitler spent the first five years consolidating his power.

[Sisyphus]

Dissent hasn't died yet here, either. That means... Bush is Hitler!

[pcs]

Dissent hasn't died yet here, either. That means... Bush is Hitler!

 

Last I check, the President stood for reelection, hasn't imprisoned his political opponents, and has never exercised legislative powers. Those are three key distinctions between him and the likes of Chavez and Hitler. Perhaps the continued electoral success of our President and his party has more to do with the political bankruptcy of the dissenters.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, and Chavez hasn't invaded any other countries by talking about some imaginary threat and the need to spread his ideals around the world, a key distinction between him and the likes of Bush and Hitler. What? Bush and Hitler are nothing alike, you say? But... but...

 

I'm not out to defend Chavez. I don't like him any more than I like Bush. But he's not Hitler, and comparing him to such not only makes you look stupid, it is counterproductive to real political discussion. Of course, if you think everything is just about winning votes and screw the other side, I guess real political discussion is not something you would care about...

[Pangloss]

But he's not Hitler, and comparing him to such not only makes you look stupid, it is counterproductive to real political discussion. Of course, if you think everything is just about winning votes and screw the other side, I guess real political discussion is not something you would care about...

 

I think that's an extreme over-reaction to the above posts. And pretty impolite to boot.

[pcs]

I think that's an extreme over-reaction to the above posts. And pretty impolite to boot.

 

Although not quite inaccurate. I have said in the past that political victory is very important, at least in my view. I wouldn't say that I'm against political discussion, in fact I think the exchange is more interesting when both sides are thinking about how to push their agendas to the forefront rather than carping about how things should be.

[pcs]

Yes, and Chavez hasn't invaded any other countries by talking about some imaginary threat and the need to spread his ideals around the world, a key distinction between him and the likes of Bush and Hitler. What? Bush and Hitler are nothing alike, you say? But... but...

 

1. The threat posed by Iraqi WMD and ties to terror was and is not imaginary.

2. Hitler appealed to rank militarism and Aryan racialism, concluding that German exceptionalism demanded they reclaim their national right to rule over the continent. He also conjured up an internal threat--the Jews--by appealing to the basest European anti-Semitism of that error.

 

So, at least in that respect, Bush and Hitler are nothing alike. On the other hand, Rumsfeld made a very cogent point about Chavez's dictatorship. As much as you dislike Bush, the President has no authority and has claimed none to postpone elections, imprison political opponents or nationalize private property. Hitler and Chavez both have, and that's a parallel I suspect decent Americans would grasp. The self-flagellators on the Left? Who knows?

[Pangloss]

That might make an interesting subject for discussion in and of itself, especially since you and I see that issue so differently. But at any rate, I'm not squelching anything, and I'd like to see the discussion continue.

 

I think it's a very interesting and provocative question, wondering where to draw the line with guys like Chavez. I don't think there are any easy answers here. But there is a clear and obvious need for the international community to be able to decide that a government is acting in the wrong, regardless of how it came to power. Saying that countries are "good" just because they were freely elected is chipping the tip of an iceberg so large it would allay the global warming fears of even the most extreme environmentalist. There has to be more.

 

I think this quote is very relevent:

 

Last I check, the President stood for reelection, hasn't imprisoned his political opponents, and has never exercised legislative powers. Those are three key distinctions between him and the likes of Chavez and Hitler. Perhaps the continued electoral success of our President and his party has more to do with the political bankruptcy of the dissenters.

 

It may not be the entirety of the answer (and it obviously wasn't intended as such), but it's a step in the right direction, IMO.

 

And this response is not relevent:

 

Yes, and Chavez hasn't invaded any other countries by talking about some imaginary threat and the need to spread his ideals around the world

 

The first example is a reasonable analysis. The second is a straw man. The United States proves its freedom and defense of democracy every single day, and has been doing so for centuries. So that kind of example, even if 100% accurate, is insufficient to make the point it claims to make.

 

On the other hand, Venezuela and Chavez do NOT have a long history of freedom, tolerance and constitutionally-protected democracy. They do not have a traditionally- and socially-established foundation of checks and balances. And so it does not take a vast number of examples to make the point that Chavez is, at the very least, dangerous and a cause for international concern.

[john5746]

So, at least in that respect, Bush and Hitler are nothing alike. On the other hand, Rumsfeld made a very cogent point about Chavez's dictatorship. As much as you dislike Bush, the President has no authority and has claimed none to postpone elections, imprison political opponents or nationalize private property. Hitler and Chavez both have, and that's a parallel I suspect decent Americans would grasp. The self-flagellators on the Left? Who knows?

 

So, Rummy could basically say the guy is starting to act like a dictator, not compare him to Hitler. I suspect any educated American would grasp this, the Bush-is-God robots on the Right? Who knows?

[Sisyphus]

So, Rummy could basically say the guy is starting to act like a dictator, not compare him to Hitler. I suspect any educated American would grasp this, the Bush-is-God robots on the Right? Who knows?

 

That would indeed be a reasonable thing to say. We ought to give people enough credit to grasp simultaneously that a)there are concerns about the man, and b)he isn't Hitler. The chief threats Hitler posed to the world, through genocide and military aggressiveness towards basically everyone, are both entirely absent in the case of Chavez, and so comparing them in that context is clearly inappropriate and appears to be intentionally misleading, calling up an emotional response to the man that has nothing to do with what he's actually done.

 

Oh, and BTW, my comparing Bush to Hitler was to demonstrate how ridiculous said comparisons are, not to say that they're actually similar...

[-Demosthenes-]

The law says slander. Whether or not its been abused (and it probably has) is another question. But there still certainly are protests' date=' which for some reason I don't think you would find in Nazi Germany...

 

Anyway, my point was to show how ridiculous it is to compare everybody you don't like to Hitler. Hitler's main crime was in creating a philosophy that required:

...[/quote']

 

Oh, I'd have to agree. Chavez is a far cry from Hitler, and Venezuela is far from Nazi Germany. Chavez may even think he's doing the right thing. What I'm saying is that he and the current Venezuelan government restricts certain freedoms that have commonly been accepted as given freedoms by most industrial/post industrial countries, such as the freedom of the press.

 

So, Rummy could basically say the guy is starting to act like a dictator, not compare him to Hitler. I suspect any educated American would grasp this, the Bush-is-God robots on the Right? Who knows?

 

Truly.

[Pangloss]

So, Rummy could basically say the guy is starting to act like a dictator, not compare him to Hitler. I suspect any educated American would grasp this, the Bush-is-God robots on the Right? Who knows?

 

So you're saying that anybody who doesn't think that Donald Rumsfeld (that's a hint, folks) was wrong in comparing Chavez to Hitler is a "Bush-is-God robot"? Come on, this kind of rhetoric is nonsense as well as being completely useless.

 

I'm extremely disappointed in the quality of discussion in this thread. I think I'll contact an admin at DemocraticUnderground.com and see if they have room for it.

[pcs]

So, Rummy could basically say the guy is starting to act like a dictator, not compare him to Hitler.

 

Sure he could. He could also say the guy is starting to act like Hitler. What's the big deal?

 

I suspect any educated American would grasp this, the Bush-is-God robots on the Right?

 

I'd say it's about fifty fifty.

[-Demosthenes-]

So you're saying that anybody who doesn't think that Donald Rumsfeld[/i'] (that's a hint, folks) was wrong in comparing Chavez to Hitler is a "Bush-is-God robot"? Come on, this kind of rhetoric is nonsense as well as being completely useless.

 

Is that what he's saying?

[Sisyphus]

What's the big deal?

 

...comparing them in that context is clearly inappropriate and appears to be intentionally misleading' date=' calling up an emotional response to the man that has nothing to do with what he's actually done.[/quote']

 

You mean beyond that?

[john5746]

So you're saying that anybody who doesn't think that Donald Rumsfeld (that's a hint' date=' folks) was wrong in comparing Chavez to Hitler is a "Bush-is-God robot"? Come on, this kind of rhetoric is nonsense as well as being completely useless.

 

I'm extremely disappointed in the quality of discussion in this thread. I think I'll contact an admin at DemocraticUnderground.com and see if they have room for it.[/quote']

 

Yes, I was basically spinning pcs's rhetoric. So, people who don't think it is wrong aren't Bush-is-God robots and people who think it is wrong are not self-flagulators either. Makes things stick out like a sore thumb when you spin it in a different direction eh?