In this past week's Slate gabfest, Emily Bazelon, who I find utterly charming, at least on podcast, has no patience for the "pandering" of Nancy Pelosi and others who went against Hugo Chavez for his rant about Bush being the devil, the smell of sulphur, etc. She seemed to think that it made no sense for Pelosi or anyone else to condemn Chavez for voicing his criticism against Bush.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Pelosi and the others were shamelessly pandering, but I think you can be pretty harsh on Chavez, critical about Bush, and still maintain intellectual integrity.
The first thing I thought when I saw Chavez's rants was: "With enemies like that, Bush hardly needs friends." I thought it was irrelevant that he was in New York, though I did think it was relevant that he was at the United Nations. I already knew that he is in violent disagreement with Bush (to put it kindly), and he had absolutely every right to express that. But it was ridiculous and childish to cross himself and make a religious thing out of it.
Recent Comments