Dems' response to Chavez misguided

IT’S NOT EVERY week that CNN and its fellow cable news networks have the most entertaining programming on television.

Yet that was the case earlier this week when a plethora of world leaders visited the United Nations and used the UN General Assembly as a platform to express their political agendas.

Perhaps the most interesting speech came from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With his country under almost constant indictment from the United States for its alleged nuclear technology programs, Ahmadinejad could have easily used the opportunity to fierily denounce his critics.

Yet his address seemed surprising restrained. Rather than condemning the United States for its foreign policy he accused the U.N. Security Council of being tyrannical in its treatment of non-member states.

While this messenger of change may not be entirely credible to some observers, the makeup and conduct of the Security Council has been long debated within diplomatic circles.

The United Nations itself is considering reforming the body in a number of ways, including the possibility of modifying the number of permanent numbers.

Ahmadinejad’s speech may have done little to calm to international furor over its nuclear programs -— but it did do a great deal to humanize the leader to skeptical audiences.

While the official Iranian line on Israel (“it shouldn’t exist”) is difficult to understand or morally reconcile, many of Ahmadinejad’s arguments regarding international law and problems in the United Nations seem to make sense.

Despite all the fanfare surrounding Ahmadinejad’s appearance and speech at the United Nations the show was unequivocally stolen the next day by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Opening his speech, Chavez said of one previous speaker, “The devil came here yesterday — and it smells of sulfur still today.”

Of course the speaker he was referring to was U.S. President Bush, who had also delivered an address the previous day.

Chavez went on to condemn the United States in brutal terms, saying that Bush had spoken “as if he owned the world.”

The reactions to Chavez’s comments from the American side were predictable.

The White House, for its part, wisely refused to comment on such provocation.

The opposition Democrats fell all over themselves condemning Chavez, throwing around terms like “thug.”

Democratic Representative Charles Rangel of New York, certainly no friend of the Bush Administration, told a press conference, “if there’s any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not.”

Excuse me?

Criticism of the President of the United States is limited to American citizens?

I’m sure the other five billion plus citizens of the world will be interested to know that according to Rangel they’re no longer allowed to have opinions on American politics.

Politics that, by the way, have a huge impact on other countries in fundamental economic and social ways.

Furthermore, the Democrats need to step back and evaluate the situation. Do they honestly believe they’re helping themselves by holding press conferences to defend the Republican president against ridiculous comments made by another world leader?

The President has an entire administration to help him do this.

I fail to see the logic in making such ludicrous statements. By even responding they’re giving Chavez a legitimacy that he doesn’t deserve in this case.

In this case I think the White House had it right. Responding to such nonsense only perpetuates it further.

Maybe the Democrats need to stay in opposition awhile longer. Maybe then they’ll learn how to play politics domestically — and how to deal with unfriendly world leaders.

Don’t get me wrong. There are things about Chavez that I certainly admire — but there are also serious questions about the legitimacy of his government and the tactics it utilizes to stay in power.

But, honestly, there was no call for calling President Bush the devil.

And, likewise, there was no need for the Democrats to speak up at all.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>