Why Did Dem Charlie Rangel Get Mad At Chavez Comments About Bush?

Question

Chavez called Bush the devil and an alcoholic, then Democrat Charlie Rangel decided to speak out against Chavez for doing so- but what did the Demcrats expect?

They have spent the last 6 years trashing Bush will all sorts of names and accusations and have helped cultivate a global image of Bush that is very unappealing.

Of course Chavez felt free to come here and trash Bush, as the Democrats have told the world over and over that Bush "stole" the election and that America "knows it", Chavez came here thinking that the people of the USA were behind him.

Since the Dems put that kind of nonsense out globally, why should they be so taken aback when they find out the world believes it?

Does Rangel have a right to be mad since his party laid the foundation for the comments in the first place?

**And for the record I dont listen to Limbaugh, I have an advanced education and write about politics for several publications as a hobby**

And yes I am a Veteran, 5 years served. And you're welcome for thanking me for my service.

ANTHONYINKC:

The "dog the bounty hunter" look isn't cool anymore.

TOKOLO-whatever your name is:

I notice you spell "favourite" with a U, the traditional english way, so when you say "act like a super power" are you telling the USA to act as former super powers in Europe did? By colonizing Africa and forcing OUR culture on them? Make them read/write in English? Add U's to things?

Answer 1

The bottom line is that Chavez has no class. Also, he is attacking the USA, not just Bush, despite his rhetoric to the contrary.

Answer 2

The idea that the international community criticizes Bush because the Democrats "gave them permission" to do so is a ridiculous one.

Even if the Democrats had been silent for the past six years (instead of the past 3-1/2), Chavez would have still said the EXACT SAME THINGS. As would all the other insane and sane people who hate Bush.

I think we're all stupider for having read your foolish question.

Answer 3

It would be irresponsible of any American politician to support with some of the petty and childish things Chavez said at the UN. By the way, Fidel Castro, not the Democratic party, laid the foundation for Chavez's comments.

For the record, it isn't as if the Democratic Party itself is a great friend of Cuba. Kennedy's fiasco at the Bay of Pigs (when he tried to have Castro assasinated) turned millions of Cuban-Americans into Republicans, which is one of the ways Jeb Bush was elected governor of Florida.

And, thank you for serving our country.

Answer 4

Six years bashing Bush? What do you think the republicans did when Clinton was in office? That's right, they bashed him. Funny thing is, did the dems go around calling every republican a traitor for bashing Clinton? No. You know why? Because the dems know that Americans have the right to speak there minds. Stop listening to idiots like Rush Limbaugh and learn to think for yourself. By the way Charlie Rangel proudly served this country in the military, have you?

Answer 5

So Americans have the right to criticise all and sundry: Axis of Evil, Terrorists, etc, but the rest of the world doesn't have the right to criticise Americans? What arrogance, AGAIN!
Stop interfering in matters that don't concern you, and you will not be criticised. By the way, most of the world, and many Americans, agree with Chavez.
Bush is a weak leader: look at the aftermath of 9/11, Katrina and the holy mess in Iraq, the problem of 'illegal immigration', the list goes on.
And now Rangel is the 'favourite son' of Fox News, right up there with their 'postergirl', Ann Coulter. (What a nice couple!)
When are Americans going to elect serious people as their leaders?
You are (unfortunately) the only 'superpower', so start acting like one, please!

Answer 6

those are continually my well-known kinds of "questions". Charlie Rangel is fairly a lot a low existence scum bag, and that i'm confident you'll come across a minimum of 500 human beings in both houses that are merely as corrupt. yet, i'm confident the liberals will line up, and aspect palms on the republicans, communicate about some obscure accusation, or per chance actually have some thing new. even with the indisputable fact that, come November fifth, maximum of those scumbags receives re-elected. The democrats received't throw out their senior scumbags, and the republicans received't throw out the junior scumbags, and the individuals land up with authorities as commonly used. We elected a president that promised desire and modify, yet really has presented words and debt. We consistently have the prevalent politicians, giving the prevalent speech's, blaming the prevalent wealthy human beings. yet no longer one will furnish some thing new. undergo in ideas Obama announcing a vote for McCain can be a vote for an same previous failed guidelines? And yet, he has no new idea's, and is really pushing the prevalent failed guidelines of the 60's and 70's. the following is a clean idea, really of asking why would not an ethics committee do some thing about the violations, and really of balloting out the violator... we vote out all and various on the ethics committee that did not some thing about all the violations. did you keep in mind that maximum of people in congress couldn't qualify for a mastercard? did you keep in mind that in the experience that they weren't in congress they could be in reformatory? did you keep in mind that in case you spoke to them like they communicate to you, you should be in reformatory?

Answer 7

Rangel was mad because Chavez went over the top -- beyond all limits of decency and diplomacy. Rangel was defending the US and the President.

Oh, I see the rest of your comments now. That the poor international image that the US has now is the Democrats' fault. Ha.

New talking point, time for me to check rushlimbaugh.com for the rest of this foolish and false argument.

Answer 8

Rangel was being a good American (not a good Democrat) when he spoke. It's ok for us Americans to talk about Bush that way, but nobody else better do it.

Answer 9

I'm proud of Charlie Rangel!

He has always been one of my favorite Democrats!

The Democratic party is not responsible for anything Chavez says or thinks. That is foolish.

Answer 10

i didnt understand why pelosi (who is the real satan) and rangel would do that... it didnt make sense. but essentially i guess he was saying that bush is the object of my hate, and you are stealing the limelight when you come do it, making speeches and giving out oil. i think that they were a little jealous that he got the attention and they arent now that its been getting a little old. i mean calling bush a loser and liar is nothing compared to calling him satan and smelling sulphur in the air. Maybe they were planning on useing that speech in '08 and now dont want to copy him.