I've knocked Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) for soliciting bribes, and I find his politics deplorable in many cases, but I've got to thank him for defending America and President Bush against the insane Hugo Chavez.
"You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State..."
Hey it's on Drudge so you've seen it, but at least I can get on the record.
Update:
Putting her finger to the wind, Nancy Pelosi has also decided to defend the President and America.
One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil."Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.
"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."
All true enough, so thanks. Now if only we could get Democrats to be such fierce defenders of America when we're attacked with bombs and not just words.
Why is it wrong for a foreigner to criticize what they believe to be bad decisions made by Bush?
Even if doing that were bad, you make it sound like it's even worse because it was done in the US. Well, the UN is headquartered in the US, so are you saying that anyone in the UN who criticizes President Bush is somehow abusing their privilege of being there?
Many Americans criticize foreign leaders. And they should. (Hopefully they say things that are a little more detailed than "Bush is like the devil", and back up their criticisms). And when you go abroad, you may choose to tone down your criticisms of the local political leader, but if you do so it is out of politeness, not because you somehow have a duty to do it. This is especially true if you're invited there to speak, and the poor (in your opinion) local political leadership is pertinent to the thing they want you to speak about.
If you traveled to Iran, North Korea, or China, would you pretend to like their leaders?
If you traveled to Iran, North Korea, or China, to give a talk about their relationship with your country or with the rest of the world, or about how the global scene (or your country) is affected by many factors (like the worrisome things done by Iran, North Korea, or China), would you pretend to like their leaders while giving your speech?
I'm not saying President Bush is as insane as the leaders of those countries. But the fact is, his decisions impact the whole world, and the UN is a forum for the world to complain about that (among other things).
By the way, I have to admit I don't know what Hugo Chavez said in his speeches. Whatever it was that he said, I think he should have the right to say it.
If he said something you guys found insulting, if he was hypocritical (complaining about the US while taking advantage of the US's freedoms, hospitality, and prosperity) or insulting (using language that goes beyond basic reasonable criticism, language that makes people mad (or otherwise emotional) rather than describing what he disagrees with and why) or insincere (just saying these things so that some people would admire him), then all right, he was being an a-hole.
But the blog post, and the texts it quotes, are not about what he said and why it was bad. They were about the idea that it is wrong for a foreigner to criticize the US on US soil, not about whether the criticisms were reasonable. About the fact he said some things, not about the things he said. I think, if the UN (and some group in New York) invites someone to speak there, they should be able to say whatever they want. And if he says things with the primary purpose of insulting his host, then just don't invite him back. And if you have to invite him and protect him (just so that he can go to the UN) despite the fact that he's hostile to the US, then I guess you can be bitter about that, but then this is just because you chose to be civilized enough to not block from the UN anyone the UN invites in, even those who are hostile to the US. Do you feel that you chose to be civilized and then got taken advantage of... by someone who chose to speak a few inflamatory words?
Bernardo: It's simple: you don't go into someone's house and then insult your host. It's bad form.
You're right. But if you want to host the UN in your house, and you're a world superpower, then you have to expect it... Well, all right, I guess there's a difference between "criticism" and "insult", but you have to admit that criticism should be ok, especially in the UN.