Chavez's 'crimes' are these – he opposed the US lead invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as Israels attack on the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples.

Every Venezuelan Election has had international observers who found the elections to be free and fair. The Media in Venezuela, is dominated by press barons who are veremently anti-socialist.

Various State and local governments in venezuela have right wing majorities.
People freely protest in pulpits, parliaments, universities, parks, streets, on the media – even that owned by the government !

Around 60% of Venezuela's trade is with the United States. Only extremist idealogues like Bush would oppose United States working with Venezuela and Chavez.

Or, as my brother puts it, citizens of the United States of Amnesia.

If there was a way not to buy Venezuelan oil, I wish that we could. As an aside, I only drive to and from the train station on a daily basis and put less that 1700 miles on my car each year, the price of oil is of little concern to me. But back to your rant. We do not insult the Chinese, because they do not insult us. On that not, I might observe that for an older man, you tend to be quite free with the ad hominem attacks and insults, too bad, it truly takes away from your ability to make a reasonable argument.

Actions speak louder than words, to complete the cliche fest. Neither Bush, nor the GOP, nor you, I'll bet, are willing NOT to buy Venezuelan oil. Hence you insult the man and hand him a check. I'd laugh at you if I were Chavez. We do not insult the Chinese, and we grant them most favored nation status, shake their hands, etc. Is that because they are not tyrants? Because they support our values and we theirs? Because they are such outstanding exemplars of democracy? That, PWT, is hypocrisy.

Like it or not, most Americans do not buy into this hyperventilating, and juvenile attacks like overreacting to a handshake or a bow are hurting you, not Obama. Again, I fully encourage your side to keep fuming about every little detail.

So you are saying that this book isn't anti-American, but that people are characterizing as such in the press? Who would have thought that could happen?

Great explanation of the radical literature being foisted upon our president. If we can keep him and everybody else from reading this, maybe we can keep foreign policy as the “shaken fist” and “non-committal nod” that so many wish to maintain.

kettle: “who are you calling black, pot?”

No, the right will not be joyous about anything Obama does, but would have been robbed of an opportunity to come off as raving lunatics, coming unhinged over a handshake. As an Obama supporter, I submit that this was yet another opportunity gained. The ranting on the right is hurting them. I fully support all ranting and raving about everything from handshakes to the Obamas dog. Go for it, by all means.

Reagan LOves dictators LOOL…
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/04/19/dict…

Catching up on news from the last few days, I came across this Gingrich gem as I was following the ongoing pseudo-controversy about Obama’s handshake with Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas. The interview was unremarkable FoxNews chatter, complete with calls for more domestic oil drilling, except for Gingrich’s hilariously ahistorical reference to the Carter administration as “pro-dictator.” In reality, it was the Reagan administration that was rather more obviously pro-dictator…
Indeed, one of the main, largely correct criticisms of Carter from the right was that he was too willing to sell out anticommunist and other allied dictators for the sake of maintaining a foolish, self-defeating consistency on democracy promotion…

I'd also like to take issue a bit with Michael's characterization of the book Chavez gave Obama. And this is nothing against Michael at all; everyone, from bloggers to mass media, who has written about this story, has called the book “anti-American” in the context of reporting that Chavez gave a copy to Obama.

As it happens, I own a copy of that book, I have read it (albeit many years ago), and it is not “anti-American.” Yes, it is a history of foreign intervention in Latin America — which, not to distress those who believe that America is the center of the universe, but it was not the only country to invade, try to control, and/or profit handsomely off of the resources of, Latin America. The book is a history — note that word, HISTORY — of Latin American as it has been shaped and effected culturally, historically, politically, by over five centuries of European involvement and exploitation. The U.S. is a significant part of that, but not the only part, and it did not start with the U.S.; it started with the European conquerors, and at that time there WAS no United States, okay?

The history of Latin America is what it is. You can use harsh language, like conquering, pillaging, exploiting, etc., or you can use softer language, like discovering, exploring, mining, profiting, protecting, liberating, etc., but the events, actions, and overall historicity are the same.

The term “anti-American” is specious in its common usage, which is as a way of characterizing any writing or speech that refers to the United States in a less than laudatory manner. Is it anti-Russia to write about the evils of Stalinism? Is it anti-Japan to write about that country's brutal occupation of Korea, which is a matter of historical record? Is it anti-American for a native Latin American writer and scholar to examine the history of Latin America from a Latin American perspective rather than from an American business perspective? If telling the history of a continent in a truthful, realistic, historically accurate way is “anti-American,” then I suppose the alternative is telling that history in a distorted, ahistorical, unduly rosy way. I prefer the first way.

Chavez aint a great guy, but why do we have to pretend he's the next Stalin?

I'm not doubting that some on the far-left would have a tizzy fit AR.

Just because some on the far ends of our political spectrum act like 12-year-old-girls, doesn't make it OK for the other side -nor the rest of us- to act that way.

Remember when Conservatives acted adult and actually made politically and fiscally sound arguments? I do, and I actually miss that.

PS
Sorry for the insult to 12-year-old-girls