Castro steps down.

Reports CNN:

Castro clung to a socialist economic model and one-party Communist rule, even after the Soviet Union disintegrated and most of the rest of the world concluded that state socialism was a bankrupt idea whose time had come and gone.

“The most vulnerable part of his persona as a politician is precisely his continued defense of a totalitarian model that is the main cause of the hardships, the misery and the unhappiness of the Cuban people,“ said Elizardo Sanchez, a human rights advocate and critic of the Castro regime.

Leonard Pitts recently had an excellent column criticizing social conservatives for always being late to the cause of social equality for minority groups. Perhaps one day American liberals will be able to denounce the brutality of the Communist regime without clenching their teeth.

Bob,

That’s because you don’t go to the right places. Most right wing web sights despise the Saudis…especially for spreading their Whahabist filth around the globe…like they’re doing in Northern Virginia at GMU…and in Texas, Michigan, California ect…. It would appear that liberals are all about secularism unless the theofacist throws in 20 million dollars for a new mid east studies dept and mosque.

Celebrate Stupidity!!!

But then, who are we to judge their culture? Better to play it safe and stick to mocking Pat Robertson. (who deserves mocking but, seriously… thats like picking on the retarded kid while the real bully stands by laughing)

One thing about Iraq. I bet if we decided to pull out tomorrow, the Saudis would get their s**t in order quick. That’s the last thing they want. Sadly, doing so would turn the region over to Iran which is even worse.

I never buy Chavez gas because there are alternatives. Our government has not told us to boycott it so I think that is a matter of personal choice.

I’m not sure I see it as a left vs. right type of issue. Both lefties and righties buy gas last time I looked, and international politics is not always the chief concern. (maybe it should be)

As to which is more evil, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, Parade magazine in the Sunday edition just listed King Abdullah #4 on the list of world’s worst dictators.

The reason Chavez ticks us off is all the instability he has caused recently. The reason Abdullah does not ever tick us off is our presidents have their collective heads up his rump, plus he, like Musharraf, are better than some of the alternatives.

What that means is not a lot to choose from. 

Some of Castro’s deeds are history. Hugo Chavez is still front page news.

To address Larry’s point, R. Smith is in agreement with the pundits who say Castro was unusually brutal.  Whether that should prevent raprochement with Cuba or not is moot. 

Human rights is always a top issue with everyone you talk to until it comes time to put gasoline in the tank.  Then it becomes a question only of whether or not you should pimp your family members to pay for it.

Bob, what would you have the US do? Invade Saudi Arabia to show them how to live? We tried that in Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Korea and Vietnam—none of which worked.

You as an American consumer can do something to minimize terrorism and feed dictators by not buying Venezuelan gas. Why do you object?

I have not seen the right wing rushing to condemn the human rights violations of Saudi Arabia, the Arab emirates with their brand of feudalism and religion. Iran being the exception.
  And American companies keep buying it to refine and you are going to blame the American left for buying Chavez gas ?
Plus the poor consumer who has the “moral” choice of buying Saudi based gas vr, Chavez gas ?

That’s wonderful Larry. I wonder what would happen to the Cuban who openly voiced the same opinion…in Havannah.

They would no doubt become martyrs in the mold of Berkowitz, McVeigh and the Harvey “Dissidents”.

I need a spell checker.

From the linked article: “Castro’s communist regime has executed hundreds of political opponents…“

This is not a sound argument to use, esp. considering that we’ve executed PLENTY of people. The reasons for the executions may be spun differently, but the bottom line is the same. An execution is an execution.

I make no apologies for pointing this out, nor do I feel any less American as a result.

ED: “I don’t get CITGO gas, on principle, but I don’t go out of my way to boycott them either.“ Hmmm. Why do you support Chavez?

Apparently there is nothing one can say in a nonpartisan way about any subject, to which you do not criptically respond. But then your statement is typical of your posts. Principle? Thanks for the laugh today.

“What’s in it for Bush is his “legacy” his lasting achievements, the stuff he will put in his presidential library.“

Bush is nothing special in that regard.  Same is true of ANY second-term president.  Geldof, who, like him or not, has spent a hell of a lot of time on this issue and knows it probably better than most other Anglos, represents that Bush has actually done more than any other president.  All the other presidents who might be motivated by the same desires you quote. 

“Even if Bush did right does not mean in the slightest that it wasn’t an egotistical drama ploy to build public relations success and legacy.“

Again, just like any other U.S. president.  Why isolate Bush in this regard? 

“The fact that Bush aides and U2 rockers are “pissed off” at the lack of attention is more proof that the people running the show over there are more concerned about their massive egos and their receding hairlines than about starving Africans.“

I don’t see how that proves any such thing.  From everything I’ve read, this is a genuine issue for Bono, who has devoted a hell of a lot of time, energy and money to it.  I’m sure they’re “pissed off”, i.e., frustrated, at the lack of attention and assistance the rest of the world gives to something they feel strongly about and are close to.

“They sure as hell are not concerned about starving Africans over here in this country.“

That seems to be a pretty fair observation.

Bill,

I have about the same regard for a drugged out aging rocker like Geldof as I do for Bush himself. Love ‘em both.

Great men if smell and attitude counts.

He says, “What’s in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing,“ Mr. Geldof said.“

Bullhockey. What’s in it for Bush is his “legacy” his lasting achievements, the stuff he will put in his presidential library. Typical of an American president who squandered all our precious American resources to squander a bit more so he can be fondly remembered in Africa.

That is just my opinion. The struggle against AIDS and our contribution to such may be worthy but they are not mutually exclusive.

Even if Bush did right does not mean in the slightest that it wasn’t an egotistical drama ploy to build public relations success and legacy. The fact that Bush aides and U2 rockers are “pissed off” at the lack of attention is more proof that the people running the show over there are more concerned about their massive egos and their receding hairlines than about starving Africans.

They sure as hell are not concerned about starving Africans over here in this country.

“AIDS money for Africa is part of Bush’s pathetic attempt to build a legacy in his remaining time in office.

“However, it may have some value. I’m not sure about the relative bang for the buck for the medications. I only know Bush had to travel to Africa and “pay” his way to be among friends.“

Bob Geldof - not widely known for his hard-core, right-wing conservative values - would disagree with you:

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html

Post Your Comments: