> That is true, of course, only if you believe all accusations
> that cast the US in a bad light and ignore all evidence to
> the contrary. The US did not, of course, support the coup.
Why is it an "of course" case? I agree that its more a case of "failure
to act" than "actively supported" but why is it a matter of simplicity?
Me:
Because if we _were_ actively supporting the coup, the military probably
wouldn't have dropped Cardona like a hot potato. And because the
statements of the Administration were pretty clear in that department.
They didn't say "Woo hoo! Chavez is gone!" as, well, a lot of people did.
They said we want everyone to maintain democracy or thereabouts.
I find it particularly ironic the way Chavez is instantly converted into
some popular champion. If Chavez were a friend of the US who had done the
_exact same things_, there's no doubt in my mind that he'd be called a
right-wing despot by the exact same people who are criticizing us now. But
make friends with a psychopathic mass murderer like Saddam Hussein, and be
all buddy-buddy with a bloody-handed tyrant like Castro, and instantly
you're one of the good guys. Amazing.
Gautam
