As the Polish national anthem played in the background, the country's top military officer in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Andrzej Malinowski, knelt down and kissed his country's flag.  It was part of the ceremony marking the official end of Poland's military presence in Iraq. 

Poland's troops return home with the pride of knowing they successfully completed their mission in Iraq.  The incredible reduction in violence there will allow Iraqi and American forces to easily fill the small void left by the departure of Poland's approximately 900 troops.   

This ceremony would not have been possible if the United States had listened to the man who is the favorite to become its next Commander-In-Chief.  In January of 2007, not only did Barrack Obama oppose the troop surge, he introduced legislation that would have set a specific timeline to precipitously withdraw all U.S. troops at a time when the war was being ferociously waged with the ultimate victor very much in doubt.  How does Webster's dictionary define "surrender"?

In calling for this rash withdrawal, Obama was attempting to contrast himself with his Democratic rivals at the time, including Hillary Clinton and his current running mate, Joe Biden.  All of them harshly criticized President Bush and were deeply skeptical of his proposed troop surge.  But only Obama, in order to shore up Democratic primary support with the anti-war left, went so far as to call for an all out date certain withdrawal.  Even John Edwards wasn't willing to do that. 

In January of 2007, when asked about the surge, Obama said, "We're not going to baby sit a civil war."   

Calling Iraq a civil-war was a favorite trope of the war's critics because it insinuated that the war was un-winnable and cast our military in the role of a mediator that neither side asked for nor wanted involved.  In other words, it painted a hopeless picture of internal strife that an outside party couldn't possibly succeed in pacifying.

We don't hear much about civil wars in Iraq today.    

While making the rounds on the political talk shows to oppose the surge, Obama announced, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there.  In fact, I think it will do the reverse." 

Since then Illinois' Junior Senator has been forced to change his position on the surge as it has become increasingly clear that the plan has been an overwhelming success.  The last time America checked in, Obama was telling Bill O'Reilly that the surge succeeded, "beyond our wildest dreams", but somehow still arguing he wasn't wrong when he opposed it.  That's logic only a politician could follow.

It's not surprising that a Democratic Senator opposed the troop surge.  What's astonishing is that the man who is on the cusp of becoming our next President was so willing to accept the dire consequences of defeat in Iraq.  He not only opposed the surge, he sought to ensure our complete military failure by his arbitrary and inflexible timeline.

And let's never forget what's at stake.

The surge rescued the United States from possibly its most devastating and humiliating military defeat in its long and proud history.  The repercussions of such a defeat, not unlike the loss in Viet Nam, would have been felt for decades. 

Had we listened to Obama, Al-Qaeda would have defeated the United States in a head-on military battle that would have significantly boosted that organization's morale and membership.  Bush critics like to claim that our invasion of Iraq has served as a recruiting tool for Islamic terrorist groups.  Could there be any greater recruiting tool than the ability for Al-Qaeda to claim they defeated the United States in Iraq and sent the super power home in a humiliating retreat?

Having been so wrong about the surge and with conditions improving dramatically, Obama and his running mate Joe Biden still insist that they will rush to "end this war."  Biden repeated this tagline several times in his recent debate with Sarah Palin. 

First, American military commanders have cast doubts on whether all United States military could be withdrawn safely from Iraq in 16 months.  The logistics alone would be daunting.  If the commanders on the ground can't guarantee a safe exit within this timeframe then it's simply not going to be attempted.  

Second, after painful mistakes and great sacrifice, American troops are succeeding in creating a democratic and peaceful Iraq. Obama's ill-advised election promise would put all the important gains of the past year in serious peril and may just undermine the entire Iraq operation.  Obama's plan would be seen as snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

Anyone who believes Obama would take that kind of political risk when things are going this well in Iraq, doesn't know Barrack Obama.  His platitudes about change and upending the status quo are undermined by his record, including his unwillingness to confront entrenched Chicago politicians and his now infamous penchant for voting "present" in the Illinois Senate.  He has earned his reputation as an aloof and calculating politician.  It's safe to say, he'd rather win an election than win a war. 

Third, less than a year after conditions in Iraq started improving, our presence there is increasingly fading into the background of the American political landscape as media coverage becomes increasingly scant.  What happened to all the anti-war rallies?  Does code-pink still exist? 

As John McCain explained to so much feigned outrage from the anti-war crowd, it's not our presence in Iraq that upsets the American public, but the fact that we were suffering high casualties there.  After all, when was the last time they held a Get-The-Troops-Out-Of-South-Korea-Rally?  Drastically reduce the violence in Iraq, explained the Arizona Senator, and the American people will be much less opposed to our troops being there. 

Welcome to the here and now- we hardly care about our military presense in Iraq in 2008 when the dark days of the pre-surge are still fresh in our minds, just imagine how little we would care in a hundred years.  Unbourtedly, as the conditions in Iraq continue to improve the impetus for a hasty withdrawal continues to dwindle. 

The usual rebuttal by Obama and his supporters to his surge blunder is to point out that he was against the war in the first place, therefore, had we listened to him from the beginning, no surge would have been necessary.  As if somehow one good decision absolves a politician of subsequent disastrous decisions regarding the same matter.  This also assumes, of course, one belives opposing the war was a good decision in the first place. 

Regardless, suppose history does judge the War in Iraq a mistake, Obama should get only minimal credit for opposing it anyway. 

His opposition came not in the form of a vote but from the safety of the Illinois Senate, a place where he had a propensity to avoid controversial votes.  He very well could have made the same political calculation that Hillary Clinton made when she decided to vote for the war. 

That is, a vote against the war could easily backfire if the war was successful and short. Anyone who opposes that kind of war runs the risk of being branded as too weak to be Commander-In-Chief.  No American politician, especially one running for President, wants to be perceived as being on the wrong side of a successful military campaign.  Surely, Obama and his groomers would have had to wrestle with that possibility had he been put to a vote. 

The truth is, we will never know what the Presidential hopeful would have done if he had been in the U.S. Senate instead of Illinois'. What we do know is that when Obama's vote did count, he was unequivocally wrong.  Opposing the surge and advocating withdrawal from Iraq as Obama's legislation purposed, would have been simply disastrous for America.  (As other have pointed out, with Americans depressed over the economic metldown, just imagine the state of our morale if that crisis came on the heels of a huge military defeat in Iraq.)  

And just where is Iraq today? By all accounts, it's a different country than it was a year ago, or even six months ago.  The reduction in violence has been drastic and undeniable- pick a category. 

All major religious and ethnic groups, including Sunnis have agreed to participate in the next round of elections scheduled for early 2009.  This would be right around the time Obama's timeline would be bringing our troops home in mass numbers, risking the security and success of those pivotal elections.

Iraqis are increasingly taking the lead in military operations.  The recent and successful excursions into Basra, Sadr City, and Diyala province provide the most notable examples.  As the Iraqi military expands, it is also becoming more ethnically and religiously mixed and therefore it is seen as increasingly legitimate by all sides. 

These are just a few of the more salient improvements among many that have taken place in Iraq since the surge began. There are so many more success stories, even if the media isn't paying much attention anymore.  There can be no doubt that momentum is clearly on the side of the Iraqi government and its U.S. supporters.  Optimism has been renewed and normal life in large measure has returned to the vast majority of Iraq.  There is a consensus forming among bipartisan experts that all out victory in Iraq is within sight.  A full fledged commitment by the United States to stay until that victory is achieved may be the final nail in the coffin of those opposed to a Muslim-majority democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

Yet, despite this, the man who built his campaign on hope still insists that he will go ahead with his plan to "end this war".  Someone should tell Senator Obama that the U.S. military, with help from good friends like Poland, is way ahead of him.  The difference is they are ending the war by defeating our enemies not by surrendering to them. 

Critics excoriate the President Bush administration for, among many things, allegedly stifling dissent regarding the War on Terror.  They are accused of labeling anyone who disagrees with their policies as anti-American and soft on terrorists.  Of the civil liberties Bush has allegedly infringed, Freedom of Speech is front and center.

Meanwhile, many environmental activists and the politicians who support them have declared a war of their own:  The War on Global Warming.  How then, after admonishing the Bush administration for trying to silence those skeptical of its War on Terror, do proponents of this war deal with their own dissenters?  Surely, being a liberal-minded, tolerant group, they must welcome the beliefs of those who are not in lockstep with their own. Not quite.

Instead of calling them unpatriotic or anti-American, they simply call them crazy.  When asked about the global warming skeptics on 60 Minutes, Al Gore responded in a recent interview," They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the Earth is flat." 

Gore attempts to demean thousands of reputable scientists in the highly complex field of climatology by comparing them with wild conspiracy theorists who still don't believe there was a moon landing. And people think Karl Rove is shrewd.

Most of the media have bought in fully to the global warming alarmist gospel and some take their criticisms of skeptics a step further.  Not only are they a little nutty, they are truly evil.  Several journalists have likened global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.  Here is taste of this type of regrettable language from a Boston Globe Op-Ed: 

"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

The not-so-subtle message to skeptics from this type of eco-fundamentalist rhetoric; you're either with us or you're against us.

As the politically correct police have so ably demonstrated regarding issues of race and gender, the suppression of free speech doesn’t always come from the government.  Just ask Larry Summers, Trent Lott, Geraldine Ferraro, and even Bill Clinton how pervasive the chilling effect on free expression has become in this country when it comes to these touchy subjects.  As they and so many others have learned the hard way, its much easier to remain silent on these issues. 

Little of this suppression has anything to do with government censors and everything to do with hyper-sensitive reactionaries who gain politically and financially from creating an environment where opinions contrary to their own are given little room for expression.  So it is quickly becoming with global warming skeptics. 

Liberal academia squeezes them out of grants and positions of authority.  The media marginalizes them.  Politicians mock them as ignorant.  Publishers are very reluctant to give them book deals. And before long they have been drowned out completely by overzealous environmental opportunists who will be damned if they’re going to let these skeptics crack the golden egg a Democratic President and Democratically controlled Congress would most assuredly lay for them. 

And just who are these skeptics?  Eco-fundamentalists along with their cohorts in the media enjoy demonizing them as evil Philistines who have been bought off by the big bad corporations.  The reality is that they are a diverse group of professors, scientists, politicians and yes, environmentalists, most of whom have no relationship whatsoever with big oil. They tend to lean left politically and happen to care deeply for the planet.  Some of them even helped pioneer the environmental movement.

At the heart of their criticisms is that the good-intentioned work formerly being undertaken to better understand our environment has turned more political and less scientific.  Objective observations have been replaced with impassioned partisanship.  Austere adherence to the scientific method has been replaced by outcome driven studies. 

There is, of course, a great deal of irony at work. Who is playing the oppressor here?  Who is playing the role of big brother watching closely, seeking to stifle voices of dissent?  Liberals are supposed to stand up for the underdog- the contrarian who dares challenge the wisdom of current authority.  Not when it comes to the environment. 

Conformity of thought is the order of the day and those who question prevailing wisdom had better tread lightly.  After all, the fate of the planet is at stake, and of course, trillions of redistributed dollars in the form of government contracts, handouts and subsidies. (Yes, that's trillion with a "T", as in 6.7 trillion dollars that Congress would collect from the public and redistribute as they see fit under the recently defeated Warner-Lieberman bill that was ostensibly aimed at combating climate change.)

What danger does this censorship pose?  History is replete with well-intentioned experts who were profoundly confident in their theories only to be found woefully wrong when the omniscient gaze of hindsight reviewed their work. If those experts were able to induce official state action, it was often with disastrous results.  Sometimes it was merely a waste of the people's money and time.  Sometimes it killed thousands.

The latter took place in Victorian England as vividly retold by author Steven Johnson in his book Ghost Map, which retraces the battle to rid London of its dreaded Cholera outbreaks.  The conventional "wisdom" espoused by most of the medical and political establishments of the day, was that Cholera was an air borne disease.  Many leading minds of the day, including several high ranking bureaucrats, were extremely reluctant to hear why that theory had holes in it.  Cholera was an air borne disease and that was final.  It made too much sense not to be correct.

As it turned out a few brave skeptics proved that it wasn't unsanitary air but unsanitary water that caused the spread of Cholera.  However, it was too late to save all the people that perished from drinking contaminated water that was pumped into their homes by a government proudly expanding its sewer and water delivery systems all the while ignorant to the fact that often it was this very water that was killing Londoners by the hundreds or even thousands.

There is something that strikes Johnson about the tone and confidence of all the experts of this time who turned out to be so deadly wrong.  He explains,

"So often what is lacking in many of these explanations and prescriptions is some measure of humility, some sense that the theory being put forward is still unproven.  It's not just that the authorities of the day were wrong about miasma; it's the tenacious, unquestioning way they went about being wrong."

A fair argument can be made that climatology experts of today do not understand global warming any better than medical experts of Victorian England understood epidemiology.  Think how primitive our understanding of the climate today will look in 150 years.  Think how ridiculous "the debate is over" will sound to subsequent generations who will spend the next century studying... and debating global warming.

This sums up the fear at the heart of the global warming skeptic, or really any skeptic.  When people in charge start acting overly confident on subjects where there is still much to be debated, it should make everyone uncomfortable.  Bush critics never miss an opportunity to remind us that we saw this type of false confidence from our own government regarding the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  They regret what they perceive as a rush to judgment leading to the War and lament that a more deliberate and cautious approach wasn't taken. Too bad many critics of that war don't advocate that same prudent approach when it comes to combating global warming.

Upon proper reflection, does joining the Kyoto Protocol still seem like the right move for the United States? As many countries struggle to keep their people from starving does it makes sense to divert so much energy and resources into making crops for biofuels instead of food for humans?  Did we fail to adequate account for how much precious fresh water is needed to make so many of the highly touted alternative sources of energy?  What other errors in judgment are we rushing to make in the name of doing something, anything to stop global warming? Only time will tell but you don’t have to be a skeptic to know those errors will be costly.

And make no mistake, there is still so much to be debated.  How much of global warming is attributable to man?  How much of the process is irreversible? What are the positive effects of global warming?  What are the proper measures needed to address the negative effects?   Is any attempt to reduce the man made effects of global warming pointless if emerging mega-countries like China and India don't cooperate? 

If people like former Democratic Congressman Mike Gravel are right and we are going to be "cooked alive on planet earth" within 50 years, what's the point in doing anything?  If in twenty years we will all be resorting to "cannibalism" due to the effects of global warming as suggested by CNN founder Ted Turner, is driving a hybrid really going to help? (Someone should remind these gentlemen that there is such a thing as overplaying your hand). 

Apparently, there is a very fine line between "fear-mongering" versus "raising-awareness" that only the eco-fundamentalist, anti-Bush crowd are nuanced enough to understand. Oh, and the use of propaganda? For global warming alarmists such as Gravel and Turner it's a perfectly acceptable technique to sell this War.

Then again, if the media treat your outrageous claims as legitimate then why not warn that Manhattan and Florida will be underwater in 20 years?  Why not cherry-pick the most dire assessments about the impact of global warming and highlight those to the general public while ignoring the more tempered ones?

No doubt amidst this hysteria and suppression of opposing viewpoints, devastating mistakes are and will continue to be made by governments in their zeal to combat global warming.  The only question is how profound those mistakes will be and how many will suffer needlessly because of them.  The moment we close off honest, open debate on the subject, is the moment we increase the chances of more mistakes being made and increase the negative consequences they will have. 

Like Cholera or terrorism, global warming may be very real and very deadly- all the more reason we should be encouraging robust and diverse debate on the subject-all the more reason not to silence the skeptics.

          Al-Qaeda has also begun preying on children. On the heels of the pet market atrocities, Al-Qaeda in Iraq training videos surfaced, showing the group actively recruiting and training children, many of whom appear to be around the age of 10. The videos show some of the youngsters donning mock suicide vests, while others are performing mock executions. Intelligence reports going back years indicate that Al-Qaeda has been interested in equipping children to carry out suicide attacks. Don’t be surprised if the next market is blown up by a 10-year-old, whether he realizes the purpose of his mission or not.

          Amazingly, even after the beheadings, mass bombings, and burning alive of men, women, and children, Al-Qaeda in Iraq has once again managed to shock our consciences. Just when we think their actions can be no more disturbing, we read about these deplorable new tactics.

          Meanwhile, in Washington, CIA director Michael Hayden and Attorney General Michael Mukasey were testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the techniques being used to fight terrorists who perpetrate these types of heinous acts. There was a great deal of outrage on the part of many Democrats on the committee, but it wasn’t directed at the abhorrent acts of our enemies — but instead at those who are trying to stop them.

          Gen. Hayden testified for the first time that the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, which simulates drowning, has been used on three high-level detainees. Among those waterboarded was the self-described mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and two other high-ranking Al-Qaeda officials.

          This testimony was particularly disturbing to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), who immediately called for a criminal investigation into whether the interrogators committed illegal acts by using this technique. This further solidifies Durbin’s reputation of being more concerned about prosecuting those who are trying to protect us rather than trying to catch those who want to destroy us. It should also serve as a reminder to all voters who are concerned about the priorities of their elected officials. Do you want leaders who are aggressively pursuing terrorists or those who are preoccupied with making sure those terrorists are being treated fairly? That’s not to say that the two concerns are mutually exclusive, but that is to say one must decide which takes precedence when the interests compete. Clearly Senators such as Durbin have made their choice and put the safety and treatment of the terrorists paramount.

          Durbin and his ilk might want to redirect some of their indignation away from the CIA director and toward their fellow congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). Both were advised by the Bush administration back in 2002 on the technique of waterboarding and its possible use to garner information from hardened terrorists if reasonably necessary to prevent another attack. At that time, neither Pelosi nor Rockefeller objected to its use. Of course, that was before the nonsensical "anti-antiterror" crowd had garnered sway within the Democratic Party.

          Other Senators on the committee, including Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also continued their obsession and supposed outrage regarding the use of waterboarding. Schumer once again sought to back Attorney General Mukasey into a corner by asking him whether he considered waterboarding illegal. Wisely, Mukasey, while acknowledging that he personally found the technique “repugnant,” refused to rule it out completely. That is, he wouldn’t go so far as to say it could never be used under any circumstances. Democrats on the committee, one by one, continued this line of questioning with Mukasey to no avail. If only they were this persistent about catching the real bad guys.

          Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” similarly tried to back Barack Obama into a corner by posing to him the now famous “ticking bomb” scenario: A suspect is in custody who authorities reasonably believe knows the location of a bomb set to go off on American soil at any moment. Despite repeated attempts with conventional interrogation techniques, the suspect won’t divulge the whereabouts of the bomb. How do you proceed?

          Obama’s response? “I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations, and I will make that judgment at that time.” Imagine that. The presidential hopeful wants the flexibility to order harsh interrogation techniques if reasonably necessary to uphold his oath to protect the American people. (But don’t give Obama too much credit; his Senate voting record on terror-related legislation, like many of his fellow Senate Democrats’, is abysmal. Just last week, he voted against giving telecommunications companies who aided our government in the wake of 9/11 immunity from tort liability. Luckily, 69 other senators saw to it that such immunity would be granted by voting “yea")

          Applying current rhetoric from many prominent Democrats to Obama’s ticking-time-bomb answer, the junior senator from Illinois “advocates torture!” But it’s a safe bet that neither Schumer nor Durbin will be making that claim against their front-runner anytime soon.

          Hillary Clinton's comments on the subject, similar to Obama’s and to those made by her husband, were that using harsh interrogation techniques, while unfortunate, may be necessary if innocent American lives are at stake. But she backed off after the MoveOn.org crowd bullied her away from this sensible position. As it is with the war in Iraq, Clinton’s position on fighting terrorism has proved malleable, and it continues to plague her credibility.

          Try as it might, the Left has not been able to counter the rational decision by the Bush administration to leave open the possibility, however rare, that harsh interrogation techniques may be necessary in the future under such ticking bomb scenarios. To be sure, the Democratic establishment and their “netroot” counterparts are hard at work formulating a response that supports the myopic position that harsh interrogation techniques must be outlawed under all circumstances. To date, they have only attacked the hypothetical itself by calling it unrealistic and simplistic. 

          Not only is it realistic, variations of the ticking time bomb scenario have already happened as outlined below. It’s simply ignorant to assume it won’t happen again. We are fighting a war on international terrorism across the globe. We are also actively engaged in subduing two insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan; the mainstays of both are terrorist activities such as car bombings and kidnappings.  In this effort we have captured hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorists. Is it unrealistic to assume that some of them will have information on pending attacks and will be extremely reluctant to provide the details? Of course not; this scenario is probably playing out right now.  

          It is also not simplistic to use the ticking time-bomb scenario because it gives the use of waterboarding and other techniques context. For example, no one would advocate using the technique on an average Taliban foot soldier who the CIA has no reason to believe possesses vital information on the next large-scale attack in Kabul or Kandahar. Likewise, no one would advocate bringing in a high-ranking Al-Qaeda terrorist and immediately using waterboarding as a first line of interrogation. Only when the interrogators are reasonably certain the detainee has information that will save lives and all other conventional interrogation techniques have failed might it be necessary, and then only under proper supervision and oversight. It’s simplistic not to take context into account.

          The soft on terror crowd also claim that harsh interrogation techniques don’t work because they elicit false confessions or unreliable information. Tell that to Al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, who interrogators say cracked in less than a minute after being waterboarded and began giving up information on planned terrorist attacks that, according to one of his interrogators, “probably saved lives.” Or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who went from recalcitrant to effusive after less than two minutes of waterboarding. Only then did Mohammed describe how he personally decapitated journalist Daniel Pearl. One can only hope that Mohammed wasn’t too put out by his 90-second ordeal. His confessions also aided in the capture of other high-ranking terrorists who, no doubt, would have gone on to kill and maim others had they continued to elude capture. So much for waterboarding’s “ineffectiveness.”

          Others worry that we’re losing the moral high ground if we don’t emphatically state that harsh interrogation techniques are never appropriate. Nonsense. The very battle over waterboarding in Washington and beyond illustrates the starkest of contrasts between us and them. While we seek only to reserve a technique (one that at no time puts the captive in any real physical danger) for the most dire and desperate of circumstances, they continue to astonish the world with their ever more heinous and brutal tactics. While we continue to take every precaution to protect the innocent, they purposefully target them with screw- and nail-laden bombs. While we place our own men and women in uniform in harm’s way to protect civilian populations, they direct their most egregious acts of war against those same civilians. While we build roads, schools, and hospitals, they blow up markets, cafes, and pipelines. Can there be any real discussion on who’s taken the low road?

          While we should never stoop to the level of our morally challenged enemy, we must also not handcuff our own operatives in the field fighting every day to win this war. Allowing waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques under very limited, rare, and regulated circumstances doesn’t compromise our moral high ground, but it will save more lives and help us defeat this enemy. When that day comes, waterboarding will no longer serve a purpose. But until that day, we must vigorously defend ourselves against the tight lipped mass murderers in our custody by leaving harsh interrogation techniques as an option of last resort.

# # #

The Cowboy in Caracas tightens his lasso on Venezuelan freedoms as Hollywood Cheers him on

By Joseph Tate

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made international headlines last year for his speech at the United Nations General Assembly largely because he described President Bush as the “devil.” Never mind that the rest of the speech was a meandering tirade that started with a glowing endorsement of Noam Chomsky, continued with a strange suggestion that Bush star in an Alfred Hitchcock film, and included an awkward gesture of solidarity from Chavez to his “Arab brothers.” All that mattered to the global media and to some here at home was that Chavez called Bush a bad name in front of the world. And now just a day away from Venezuela’s crucial referendums on Chavez’s controversial proposals that would turn the country into a socialist dictatorship, some Americans, including many from Hollywood, inexplicably continue to support him.

Chavez had been spouting his rather ineloquent brand of anti-American rhetoric long before this infamous speech, often including hyperbolic accusations of imperialism and exploitation on the part of the American government. While he has won points with some for his frank style, politicians from both sides of the aisle mostly see him as a blowhard whose democratic record is shaky at best. Several senators criticized Chavez’s UN speech, including Democrat Christopher Dodd, who called it “destructive” and “inappropriate.” Our UN ambassador at the time, John Bolton, called the speech “comic strip” diplomacy. The general sentiment among average Americans was that the speech was tactless and insulting, regardless of their opinion of Bush.

However, Chavez’s wild charges against the American government managed to resonate strongly in our most impressionable and reactionary of towns: Hollywood, especially among its most vehemently anti-Bush inhabitants.  And like socialist moths drawn to an anti-American flame, actors such as Danny Glover and Sean Penn flocked to Hugo Chavez’s side for photo-ops and to show their support, never ones to miss a chance to publicly chastise the Bush administration.

Before the UN debacle, Penn, Glover, and many others in the American Left were already applauding Chavez’s public takeover of Venezuela’s private industries, including the all-important oil exports. All of which was done — ostensibly, of course — for the good of the Venezuelan people. They lauded Chavez’s self-described socialist “revolution” as a move to ease the suffering of Venezuela’s poor. And on top of all that massive wealth redistribution and hamstringing of Venezuela’s previously free market, Chavez was calling Bush “the devil.” Many in Hollywood had found their hero.

Not long after his publicity stunt at the United Nations, Chavez made his way back into world headlines, this time for domestic abuses of power. Many in his own country, particularly young pro-democracy students, were already wary of Chavez’s questionable political maneuverings. He cemented their mistrust by revoking the broadcasting license of the nation’s second-largest television station — a station that had been highly critical of him. This prompted mass demonstrations inside the country, evidenced by YouTube videos showing tens of thousands of student protesting Chavez’s draconian measure. It also prompted a rather lame response from Penn, who defended the move by saying the radio station had supported the  killing of Chavez, so, all things considered, this was a subdued response by the aspiring dictator.

Hollywood spin aside, it’s now apparent that Chavez supporters in the United States find themselves in the uncomfortable position of defending a regime that’s increasingly hostile to basic democratic institutions, while continuing to excoriate Bush for exercising comparatively mundane executive powers here at home. To complicate matters for Chavez supporters, those opposing him are no longer “elitists” or “fascists” as he is prone to claim, but middle-class college kids who have a newfound sense of urgency, as Chavez’s control on the country begins to feel more like a vice-grip. And El Presidente is just getting started.

Last January, the incumbent Chavez won Venezuela’s national election, the legitimacy of which, many there and abroad, continue to question. If there were any doubts about his intentions, during his acceptance speech, he pledged “we’re heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it.” More like steamrolling toward socialism.

This year alone, in addition to taking over the oil industry, Chavez has made plans to nationalize the country’s electric and telecommunications companies. Chavez’s government is also set to take control of the nation’s central bank. All these changes suggest that he is moving quickly and efficiently to assert tighter control over the country’s purse strings. These largely economic “reforms” are threatening enough to a democracy, but it is his most recent proposals that should have everyone who cares at all about civil liberties (including Kevin Spacey, who recently visited Chavez to discuss film financing) worried.

To ensure that Venezuela’s slide into socialism goes unchallenged, Chavez has proposed, through referendums scheduled for Dec. 2, changing the country’s pesky constitution. As it stands, that document requires him to step down in 2012 due to term limits. In characteristically vague fashion, Chavez recently stated that the change was necessary to “bring new horizons to a new era.” More unsettling still, Chavez is seeking ambiguous “emergency powers” that will make it easier for him to detain and control his opposition. Additionally, the parliament and judiciary, both stocked with Chavez’s allies, support his idea of expanding the use of controversial Soviet-style “local councils” that many argue usurp the authority of elected officials and that are ripe for abuse by an all-powerful president. And still many in the American Left continue to defend him, while lambasting Bush for alleged abuses of power here at home.

Those that are skeptical of Bush’s expansion of executive power should be terrified of Chavez, not suporting him.   Bush will be leaving office in the not-too-distant future, with no possibility whatever of remaining in power or of having Dick Cheney succeed him. So who will inherit the newly expanded powers of the oval office? Hillary Clinton, perhaps, but not Bush nor anyone from his administration. Chavez, on the other hand, is doing what all dictators before him have done: threatened, plotted, cajoled, lied, and whatever else it takes to stay in power indefinitely. In 2009, George Bush will be retired. Where will Hugo Chavez be? What about in 2019?

What about the presidents themselves? A comparison underscores the hypocritical nature of the anti-Bush, pro-Chavez camp. Bush is constantly derided by the Left for his simplistic views of good and evil, right and wrong. How dare he be so naive as to say “You’re either with us or against us”? They scoff at the jejune phrases he uses to describe terrorists, such as “evil-doers” and “the killers.” Well, if you find Bush pedestrian, Chavez is downright imbecilic. Anyone who opposes the Chavez regime is a “traitor” or a “fascist.” In his well-publicized spat with the king of Spain, Chavez offered this chestnut: “Fascists are not human; a snake is more human.” And Chavez on capitalism: “Capitalism leads us straight to hell.” And on the United States: “It makes us all slaves.”

Somehow, to Chavez supporters, this passes for political discourse; while Bush’s word choice, which by any measure is less demagogic, is a collection of oversimplifications and outright lies. Where Chavez is fiery, Bush is arrogant. Where Chavez is passionate, Bush is a zealot. Apparently, it’s acceptable to call your political opponents “snakes” and “devils”; just make sure you don’t use the word “freedom” too often.

And let us not forget religion. Liberals cringe when Bush references God. They mock his born-again Christian background and, while they may not fear Jesus, they certainly fear Bush’s belief in him. However, in Chavez’s speeches, God is ubiquitous. Chavez’s critics have often accused him of manipulating the masses through the use of religious references and symbols.  He has publicly compared himself to Jesus and sees himself as a Christ figure. Chavez’s use of the word “devil” in describing Bush was no accident, but, in fact, consistent with the religious tones his audiences are used to hearing from him.

Yet once again, many on the American Left choose to turn a deaf ear, giving Chavez carte blanche in his repetitive use of Christian references and symbols to strengthen his positions and justify his actions. Meanwhile, they accuse Bush of being dangerous, in part, because he is a “religious nut.” 

Many mainstream media outlets that started out sympathetic toward Chavez have only recently increased their criticisms of him and raised suspicions over his political machinations. Even the BBC has taken a noticeably harder edge. But others still have their heads planted firmly in the sand — and that’s not limited to the credulous crowds of Hollywood. There are well-organized groups who still defend Chavez.

And it is these groups that are so interesting — almost painful — to watch, as they contort their views into previously unimaginable positions in order to avoid condemning their socialist hero. The same organizations that call for Bush’s impeachment for alleged constitutional abuses and civil-rights violations apparently don’t think that Venezuelans should be afforded the same protections. The same groups that want to extend every protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution to terrorists committed to our mass murder aren’t nearly as concerned about the average Venezuelan’s civil liberties. They give Chavez an enormous amount of slack to pursue his socialist agenda, which often includes silencing his critics along the way. That same leash, of course, is pulled tighter than a snare drum when Bush so much as authorizes the review of someone’s library records. It’ll be interesting to see how long organizations such as FAIR and Democracy Now! (note the titles) continue to twist logic in order to support Chavez, undermining their own credibility.

With the referendum on El Presidente’s proposals at hand, the anti-Chavez demonstrations in Venezuela only grow larger, a recent one conservatively estimated at 80,000. It’s becoming increasingly difficult for Americans supposedly concerned about civil liberties to ignore this. How long will people like Danny Glover continue to look the other way? How long will Sean Penn keep defending Chavez for the same actions that, if carried out by Bush, would provoke his instant outrage? At some point, even they will have to admit that hating Bush and loving Chavez is intellectually dishonest and politically inconsistent. At some point, they’ll have to abandon “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality and admit they were wrong about their man in Caracas. At some point, common sense must trump stubbornness.

Fortunately, for all but the most diehard of Chavez’s American supporters, it already has. We can only hope that same overdue realization has taken place in enough Venezuelans so that Chavez's anti-democratic proposals are voted down.  Otherwise, this vote may be their last.