Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Chavez: Indict Bush, Not Bashir
DOHA, Qatar - The president of Venezuela said today that international prosecutors should indict former U.S. President George W. Bush for crimes in Iraq, rather than Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for crimes in Darfur.
Protesters chant slogans outside the venue where former US President George W. Bush was speaking to an invited audience of Calgary businessmen on Tuesday, Mar. 17, 2009.
(AP Photo/Jeff McIntosh, The Canadian Press) "The recent indictment against the Sudanese president Bashir is one of these ridiculous cases. It's a farce," President Hugo Chavez said at a summit of Arab and South American countries in Qatar.
"So why doesn't the international court indict President Bush, who committed atrocities over eight years, for example, and annihilated the Iraqi people?" he added.
Bashir flew this week to Qatar, where an Arab summit gave him strong support against his indictment by the International Criminal Court for atrocities in the Darfur region of western Sudan.
Bush, who left office in January, ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, toppling former strongman Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died in the insurgency and sectarian violence that ensued, and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes.
Chavez made his comments in a speech that attacked Israel for its assault on the Palestinian territory of Gaza in January. He ridiculed Israel's argument that its military offensives against Palestinians were in self-defence.
Chavez praised Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, among the few Arab leaders who stayed behind after Monday's Arab summit to attend the second meeting of Arab and South American leaders.
Leaders from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which are generally aligned with the United States and back the U.S. political and military presence in the region, had already left Doha.
90 Comments so far
Show AllIf only Chavez would drop the hyperboles, he would be taken more seriously. As far as i know, there are still some irakis left standing after the US "annihilated" them, although sometimes i wonder if its the translator who's taking a few liberties.
Is there any reason why people should take your post seriously?
It's no hyperbole to say that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or wounded or lost their homes. It's only those like you who have become so inured to slaughter (especially Arab slaughter) who can talk about hyperbole. If Iraq had done to us what we've done them them, then you would really see hyperbole. Chavez is a leader that we could use: honest, brave, and outspoken. You, on the other hand, could use a good mouth wash-out with Ivory soap.
When you take universalism seriously, then you will take Chavez seriously. I suggest you read some Chomsky.
Or, in the words of Keith Richards> Read ANYTHING.
Re eyesofacat March 31st, 2009 3:06 pm:
Chavez is taken seriously everywhere in the world except the U.S. corporate media.
Bush is worldwide public enemy #1
For the dignity of the human race he MUST be brought to justice
busterkikki
Chavez is not one to be flippant about. He is not afraid to say what he thinks and follow up on it, a lot more so than some recent American leaders. Chavez may turn out to be one more pitiful Latin-American dictator and bankrupt his own people, but I suspect he is serious about taking better care of his people than anyone in Mexico, for instance.
It is significant that Chavez wants to go after Bush, who deserves whatever fate comes his way.
Anyone who dismisses Chavez as simply another heavily-decorated pseudo leader is making a big mistake. We may need him one of these days and we don't have enough friends to just throw them away. Chavez may not be what we consider a friend today, but down the road he may help us a great deal. Don't bury him.
Chavez is only half right: both Bashir and Bush deserve to be in jail. Chavez is taking this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing to a ludicrous extreme and making himself a laughing stock.
A laughingstock for US imperialists, but few others. Because outside the imperal bubble everyone understands himan nature relatively well. Outside the imperial bubble people are sober, alert, clear-headed. They have to be. Because of the imperial threat.
And so, outside the bubble people see that it's natural, and urgent, for states to join together to meet the imperial threat with equal and opposite force. It's called balance of power, an idea that is kind of like antitrust regulations, familiar to all outside the imperial bubble as necessary to reign in the imperial threat.
In case you don't see the principle, think about what would change if hypothetically Venezuela became the dominant state in the world next week. It no longer needs to ignore the vices of its coalition partners. Think about this. USans need to think more, and build fewer vacation homes and SUVs.
If USites ever ventured out of their house of cards fortress, they would know that in the rest on the world--and especially in the Middle East--Chavez is god.
I wish people would get it straight in their heads that there is a difference between the names of continents and the names of nations. The correct demonym for a citizen of the USA - (don't forget the A!) - is American.
All others in the Americas may be North Americans, South Americans, Latin Americans, Anglo Americans, etc. - but none of those refer to nationality. Is there another nation with America in its name? I know of another with United States - though in Spanish - but no other with America.
Those of us who live in other parts of America are really offended by gringos who insist they are the only Americans.
And that they are the only ones entitled to the planet's resources.
And that they are the only ones....period.
The back of my hand to you.
Ahh. I see. So because US imperialism is evil, it needs to be balanced, even if the balancing force is equally evil.
I really wish Chavez hadn't shot off his mouth like this. Bush and his cronies need to be indicted - there's no doubt. But that in no way takes away the gravity of the situation in Darfur - a situation that has been brought about by the arrogance of people like the Sudanese president al-Bashir. This is the sort of mindless, almost tribal, loyalty that is often misplaced that I've seen when some "leftists" defend China on the Tibet issue. Of course, the ICC made the first moronic step of issuing an arrest warrant against al-Bashir, not considering the possible adverse effects on the Darfur people (and now the aid agencies have been kicked out of Darfur in retaliation). I say moronic because it's easy to ask, where was the International Criminal Court all these years when atrocities have been taking place in places like Burma, Sri Lanka, Gaza and so on? I think this must have been done by a bunch of overzealous bureaucrats at the ICC.
Hugo Chavez has great things going for him - in terms of respect from a broad spectrum of people. He undermines this respect and his credibility by defending rogues and criminals such as Sudan's al-Bashir, and there was no need for that. I wish the Venezuelan ambassador or someone with access to Chavez would see my comment and forward it to him!
Of course folks like you can feel free to shoot off your mouths with impunity--and even expect that Chavez should be interested in your opinion.
USites--the global legislators....give me a break.
Read my comment again. My point was that Chavez should avoid undermining the respect and credibility he enjoys (and deserves) among a wide spectrum of people - and that includes me. Don't be too quick with your replies.
I will reply at any speed I choose to.
You have never met Chavez, know absolutely squat about Latin America and its leaders, yet you have the nerve to shoot off your keyboard with impunity just because you are from the US.
Get over it. Nobody in MY part of the world gives a fat rat's ass about your respect. or anything else about you.
Then why are you replying to every post on this site, insulting those who dare criticise (generally quite mildly) Chavez? It would seem you at least care a great deal about what they think of him.
And when they answer your questions, pointing out quotes that support them, you accuse them of being liars or "shills", or claim wihtout any evidence that they are ignorant and unable to find Venezeula or Sudan on the map, or call them illiterate/ignorant gringos.
Some people disagree with you. If somehow you have lived this long without noticing, learn it now. Next lesson: you convince those people more easily if you attempt to reason with them, rather than flying into a rage when they disagree with you.
Finally, regarding "[YOUR] part of the world", wherever that may be, I hope the rest of the people there are better educated in basic reasoning and better mannered than you.
P.S. I apologise for replying to two of your posts, but I had not seen all of what you had written when I wrote the one above. Sorry to repeat some of what I wrote up there down here.
waterproofla, thank you for the response. I find it amusing (also tiring) when people assume that others do not know enough about other countries or their leaders. I have been following (at least every now and then) leaders like Daniel Ortega and his brother making their case since the 1980's, followed Bolivian politics a little bit since before Morales became president, know enough about the US involvement in the region and about characters such as Pinochet (and in recent times, Alvaro Uribe), and have more than a passing knowledge about Chavez. I've seen the documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", have read glowing accounts about him by western journalists such as Linda McQuaig in her book "It's the Crude, Dude" (someone called her "Canada's Michael Moore"), and more than all that, I know about the bias in the US media - hence my attempts to get information from other sources. About a year ago, I even wrote about The Daily Show's Jon Stewart's apparent screw-up with Vicente Fox after he had interviewed Bolivia's Evo Morales on his show:
http://highintel.com/content/jon-stewarts-worst-interview-ever-1
What is that they say when someone ass-u-me-s?
Well, you didn't convince me that you know anything.
What do you do for an encore?
No, what pisses me off is you buttinsky gringos who can't even wipe your own mess insist on shooting off your ignorant mouths about Latin America--where I live.
You have done nothing but smear this planet.
If that is good manner, then the world is truly fucked.
Chavez is terrific! He's a leader who is not afraid to say what he thinks! Bush is a War Criminal. What we've done to Iraq is both a War Crime and a Crime Against Humanity. He belongs at the the Hague answering for his offenses. People should not rest until that is where he is! The poor, suffering souls in Iraq get no rest. Neither do the Palestinians. Still, there are no prosecutions. Pinning my hopes on the Spanish Court, although that will only go so far. Sad.
But OUR war criminals are more righteous than YOUR war criminals. God bless the United States of America!
But if the war criminal is from a poor country we ought to just let it slide, right?
When you're first world, you're a brutal thug bully, but if you're third world then you're being maligned and persecuted.
I get it now.
Chavez is great on some issues. But on others he is an absolute idiot (and not much better than Bush to be honest). This is one of those issues. Bashir is responsible for the genocide STILL taking place in Darfur and Chavez's disregard of this amounts to complacency and revisionism. He's using the millions of innocents in Darfur to make a political point (and a petty one at that). He does the same thing on other issues. It amounts to saying "I don't like X, and Y also doesn't like X and is different than X, so Y must be good." Well, the world is too complex for that logic. Sometimes Y is a tyrant responsible for genocide.
Correct the wrongs of BOTH Bush and Bashir to the full extent of international law. But don't play politics with innocent lives.
It is things like this (as well as trying to become a permanent dictator in Venezuala) that will make the world take Chavez less and less seriously as time goes on. Real leaders don't grab attention like this, they make a difference for their people and the people of the world. It seems that Chavez isn't a real leader.
It seems to me that you are not a real human being.
Actually, I agree with the previous poster. Chavez is a great man and I support the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela wholeheartedly (almost wish we could have one here). That said, he should have chosen his words better. Bashir is a monster; leader of the Arab occupiers and murderers of the native African Sudanese. In my mind, the ICC can't catch him fast enough. However, he was right in that in any criminal prosecution, taking down the head of the outfit will usually do more good than not. There is no doubt that Bush, Cheney, et alia are responsible for some very horrible, nearly genocidal war crimes and should be tried, convicted and hanged post haste. Chavez isn't infallible but, we discount his words at our peril.
patgarret,
Would you mind sharing with the rest of us why you believe the previous poster to be "not a real human being"?
Is there something in his post that exposes him as an alien intelligent life-form? A robot or some other form of artificial intelligence?
Or are you using Nazi-like tactics of classifying someone or a group of people as subhuman and not worthy of basic human rights? If so, why? Because this individual feels Chavez should recognize Bashir as a war criminal for his role in the ongoing genocide in the country in which he rules?
Thanks,
Adhoc
Let's put it this way: When you can find Sudan and Venezuela on a map, I might deign to answer your silly questions.
LOL! patgarret, thank you for using ad hominem arguments and thus making clear your level of ignorance. Now I know not to waste anymore time replying to your posts.
Chavez, and his supporters, is using typical anti-imperialist anti-western leftist logic. US / West=bad. Ergo, anyone against US = good.
What has Chavez done to you that is so bad?
Probably nothing to him, but Stalin and Hitler never did anything to him either. They're still evil. Chavez has turned a Democracy into a dictatorship. Anyone who agrees with his policies should live a spell in Venezuela and see the consequences.
Bashir is a monster. He shows all the leftist freaks what genocide really looks like, and it doesn't look at all like Israel. Perhaps that's why Islamic nations support him so much. In a Orwellian double-speak sort of way, they can call genocide not-genocide then not-genocide can be genocide. Brilliant!
YOU, sir, are the monster.
A pathological liar, in fact.
Either that, or you are simply a paid shill.
I tell the truth. You all call me names. It's fun!
I have been and continue to be a Chavez supporter. But, he has gone off the deep end supporting Bashir.
For a better view of Chavez and a heroic moment for his supporters, go to the Lily Films site to see The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, as well as a terrific list of documentaries.
Nonsense.
Show me where he SUPPORTED Bashir.
Some of the people on this site couldn't pass a literacy test.
Ummm it wasn't very hard to find. In the first few paragraphs of the article, actually.
"'The recent indictment against the Sudanese president Bashir is one of these ridiculous cases. It's a farce,'" - Hugo Chavez
Now please explain to me how that statement can be interpreted as NOT being in support of Mr. Bashir.
The subject of the sentence, illiterate gringo, is INDICTMENT.
IT is described as farcical.
Because it is not the indictment of Bush.
Get it now?
"Get it now?" - It is impossible to 'get' a non sequitur like the argument you just made.
Per Reuters (in this article): "Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died in the insurgency and sectarian violence that ensued, and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes."
Only off by an order of magnitude and then some. Even conservative estimates put Iraqi dead at several hundred thousand and the number of displaced at 4 million or so. Note also that even the "tens of thousands" died "in the insurgency and sectarian violence," not at the hands of U.S. or British forces.
I gather Reuters is full-fledged MIC media. Not to trust anything they say, including their translations of Chavez' speeches.
^ That was an excellent observation.
Why would Chavez Defend Bashir? No doubt that Bush et al deserve indictment also, but that doesn't negate the atrocities I have seen first hand on the ground in Darfur. They are clearly linked and well prooved by the ICC, to fall on the hands of Bashir and others.
Chavez's comment about Bashir only serves to make him look like a grand-standing crackpot, trying to act tough to impress his Arab friends. And sadly this will lead others to ignore his comments about Bush, which should be taken seriously and legitimize those who seek to overturn the ICC indictment.
In the end, the people of both Sudan and Iraq pay the price.
Thoroughly disappointed in Chavez.
He did not defend Bashir.
He said it was absurd to single out his crimes before putting Bush on trial.
He DID defend Bashir for his own political gain. Either way, why is it absurd to prosecute acts of genocide before acts of war crimes? In my mind, they both need to be prosecuted and it doesn't matter which comes first. Any way you look at it, Chavez made light of genocide for his own political gain.
The way in which you are defending Chavez is scary. Your attitude is why despotism and tyranny are possible. Do you believe that Chavez can do any wrong? Or, is he perfect because he is "left wing" and says mean things about Bush? When people stop questioning their leaders very bad things happen. You seem to have stopped questioning things. Tragic.
At least Bush didn't try to outstay his welcome by changing his countries term limit laws.
Agreed. The fact is that both of them should be cellies with Chaney.
Is his desire to get up the US Government's nose so irresistible that he would call the arrest warrant for a brutal leader a "farce"? Why doesn't he take a trip to Sudan and tell the people of Darfur that it's a farce?
They might disagree with him. He may even be forced to open his eyes to the fact that he just backhandedly gave approval to what's happening to them....and he did it for the sole purpose of pissing off Uncle Sam.
I wonder if, sometimes, Hugo simply talks to hear himself talk.
A leftist leader talking to hear himself talk? Big surprise!
Considering that ignorant people like you post on this site just to see yourself in print....
Logic ain't your strong suit, now, is it?
If I were in your shoes I would be doing something about my own country before it is completely sewage--not pointing my fat finger at a country I can't even find on a map.
YOU are the problem, not Chavez. He is the solution.
I'm sorry patgarrett, but the crimes committed by Bush and those committed by Bashir are completely independent of each other.
Chavez IS defending Bashir by saying the indictment is "a farce". The fact that Bush hasn't been indicted is the farce, not the fact that Bashir has.
If person A and person B both independently commit murder in completely different cities, person A walks free while person B gets arrested and charged. Are the charges levied against person B a farce?
It's time for people like you on this site to stop blindly supporting people like Chavez without the support of a rational argument.