Hugo Chavez – 1; George Bush – 0

George W Bush’s “tour’ of South America has been dogged, unsurprisingly, by demonstrations and unrest from the locals. In Guatemala today he visited a Mayan shrine. After he had left, the priests in charge of the site hastily performed purification rituals, to rid the site of “evil spirits” Bush may have left behind.

The US president’s remarks during a speech in Columbia, stating, “The US cares about the people of South America” cuts little ice, either there or in the US.

The true reason for Bush rushing south recently has more to do with China, and the rapidly developing ties between it and the Latin American nations Bush is now desperately endeavoring to foster. Those more narrow-minded members of Congress, who forever see “Reds” under every bed, and view China as the next US adversary after the Middle East, are becoming nervous of the Oriental invasion taking place in their backyard.

Unfortunately for Mister Bush, the Venezuelan lefty, Hugo Chavez, is probably doing a better job of persuading South Americans that his way is better. After all, there is a measure of truth in his statement that George W Bush is a “political corpse”, given that the US president is entering the final death throes of his incumbency, and unlike Bush – who dare not risk speaking directly to the people, and is content to only converse with national leaders – Chavez woos the populace, drawing huge crowds to his conventions.

While George W Bush claims to be the “close personal friend” of Guatemalan President Oscar Berger and Columbia’s wholly dubious Alvaro Uribe, Hugo Chavez is presenting himself as amigo to all Latin American peoples.

At least, for now.

Filed under:

Please follow and like us:

5 Replies to “Hugo Chavez – 1; George Bush – 0”

  1. I watched Bush on the news – he slaughtered the Spanish language in a little question and answer period. On top of that, he did it with that stupid smirk smeared across his face. The man has to be rated as the most evil person in the world at this point. Wish he would just stay in Latin America, but I wouldn’t do that to those people. They have enough trouble.

  2. your characterization of congress is a bit off. quite a bit, i’d say.

    the us policy toward mainland china is much more complex than ‘communist’ = ‘bad’ in fact, china is engaged regularly as a regional superpower…news reports ay make it seem otherwise, but if you read the news through a ‘chinese lens’ – you’d see more cooperation than not.

    the chinese in latin and south america is old news. they are well established there. the chinese on the african continent…now *that* is current 😉 the chinese are (and for the most part always have been) very adept at cultural and political change through trade.

    senior members of congress know these things. the vast majority of our policies reflect this acceptance of growing chinese influence in the world.

  3. I guess I have finally gone over the edge. I find myself laughing at the things bush says when he goes off script. Chavez can be funny too, but it’s because he intends to be funny.

  4. PM – he may possibly be worthy of the title ‘most evil’, though Mugabe might teach him a thing or to. Of course, the Zimbabwean dictator has rather more free reign within his own country, than Bush in his.

    mikesheppard – I made no characterization of Congress. I referred to “Those more narrow-minded members of Congress…., which can scarcely be described as a generalization; it was a specific. While the Chinese have certainly made substantial inroads into Africa, Bush is hardly likely to show his face there again after the reception he got in 2003. Nelson Mandela described him at the time as “a man who can’t think properly.”

    PoP – Bush would be funny, but for the blood on his hands.

  5. i misread your post, i apologize. as to bush…yeah, he’s a poor manager, a poor example to follow and a person who deals poorly with problems when they arise.

    the real question is what will we get in 2008? and what will really change? the window dressing (i.e. a literate, charismatic speaker who is tactful)? or actual policy? and why? 😉

Comments are closed.