http://haloscan.com/tb/delawarewatch/114227941616027661
I'm not big on meta blogging. That is, blogging about other blog posts. However, I'm going to do it anyway. Why? I think it's often illustrative between our politcal differences but mostly because I'm lazy. Dana is a fellow First Stater and writes a quality blog. His posts are well written and topical. I totally disagree with him on pretty much everything but I think he's good blogger. He's a partisan lefty and I often think that skews his perception wildly. In this post, he's indignant that the FBI interviewed a college professor about Venezula and the local Venezuelan population. Much of Dana's effusiveness for Venezuela come from a program to give free oil to "poor" people. This imbues Hugo Chavez with imperviousness from all criticism. The corruption and persecution of political opponents is ignored. Giving $1,000,000 to al Qaeda is ignored. Lefties like Dana rail about stolen elections in Florida and Ohio but Chavez is above reproach. Voting in third world banana republics is more reliable than the US.
The professor says the FBI interviewed him about local Venezuelans and Venezuelan government agents. Asking if any of them could be a threat. Heaven forfend! What both Dana and the Professor fail to realize is that the FBI assumes that the man is a good and patriotic American and would want to help them nab anyone who would do this country harm. That the two of them overlook that is very telling. Their first instinct is indignance and outrage. Methinks thou dost protest too much. I seem to remember a story about a student who was questioned for asking after Mao's Little Red Book. Are we seeing more of the same here? Probably not. The FBI probably was asking questions but that doesn't mean they're from the Dissent Squashing Brigade (Ashcroft division).
Why would the FBI be interested in Venezuelan agents in the US? Could it be the $1,000,000 Hugo Chavez gave to al Qaeda after September 11th? Or harboring al Qaeda fugitives? Could that mean, that maybe, just maybe Hugo Chavez is not a nice guy and no friend of America? I know the retort, the CIA and knew about and financed a coup attempt against Chavez. It wasn't a coup, it was a referendum. The CIA may have known about the coup but they were right to keep their mouth shut. It used to be that leftists were in favor of toppling dictators and spreading freedom. Now they're Hamiltonian isolationists more in line with Pat Buchanan than Christopher Hitchens or Tom Friedman. That's not an indefensible position, just one that requires consistency which I find sorely lacking.
I'm not big on meta blogging. That is, blogging about other blog posts. However, I'm going to do it anyway. Why? I think it's often illustrative between our politcal differences but mostly because I'm lazy. Dana is a fellow First Stater and writes a quality blog. His posts are well written and topical. I totally disagree with him on pretty much everything but I think he's good blogger. He's a partisan lefty and I often think that skews his perception wildly. In this post, he's indignant that the FBI interviewed a college professor about Venezula and the local Venezuelan population. Much of Dana's effusiveness for Venezuela come from a program to give free oil to "poor" people. This imbues Hugo Chavez with imperviousness from all criticism. The corruption and persecution of political opponents is ignored. Giving $1,000,000 to al Qaeda is ignored. Lefties like Dana rail about stolen elections in Florida and Ohio but Chavez is above reproach. Voting in third world banana republics is more reliable than the US.
The professor says the FBI interviewed him about local Venezuelans and Venezuelan government agents. Asking if any of them could be a threat. Heaven forfend! What both Dana and the Professor fail to realize is that the FBI assumes that the man is a good and patriotic American and would want to help them nab anyone who would do this country harm. That the two of them overlook that is very telling. Their first instinct is indignance and outrage. Methinks thou dost protest too much. I seem to remember a story about a student who was questioned for asking after Mao's Little Red Book. Are we seeing more of the same here? Probably not. The FBI probably was asking questions but that doesn't mean they're from the Dissent Squashing Brigade (Ashcroft division).
Why would the FBI be interested in Venezuelan agents in the US? Could it be the $1,000,000 Hugo Chavez gave to al Qaeda after September 11th? Or harboring al Qaeda fugitives? Could that mean, that maybe, just maybe Hugo Chavez is not a nice guy and no friend of America? I know the retort, the CIA and knew about and financed a coup attempt against Chavez. It wasn't a coup, it was a referendum. The CIA may have known about the coup but they were right to keep their mouth shut. It used to be that leftists were in favor of toppling dictators and spreading freedom. Now they're Hamiltonian isolationists more in line with Pat Buchanan than Christopher Hitchens or Tom Friedman. That's not an indefensible position, just one that requires consistency which I find sorely lacking.
Comments