Why did Chavez get 60 seconds of applause at the U.N. after calling Bush "The Devil", when Bush only got 15 se

Question

The brutal and notorious dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, received 60 seconds of applause and laughter at the United Nations after repeatedly referring to the American president as “The Devil” and saying he could still smell the sulfur. He also said that “The devil was here, as if he owned the world” Certainly I do not condone this outrageous and unprecedented outburst by a Head of State. However, I must point out that in retrospect, the notorious (in all due respect) Leader of America received only 15 seconds of applause for his remarks the day before. Could this be because Chavez put into words what many of the diplomats in attendance would have liked to say, especially the remark about Bush (the devil) thinking he owned the world. If our leader does not think he owns the world, what right has he to suffer abuses across the globe on lands and people never involved in our current war without end, the “War on Terror”?

It seems that the majority who chose to answer my quarry are not mindless followers of our Great Leader. It always makes me wonder how this guy could have been elected Twice?? Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for Chavez to call the Great Leader "the bad folk who wants to hurt us" Sound familiar? This comment came not only from a Harvard graduate, but also from a sitting U.S. President. I never thought that I would think of George H Bush as a good president, but compared to Jr. he was one of the best. I have no love for Dubya, but would never stoop to call him the devil. I could say he is brutal, ignorant, arrogant, heartless, blood thirsty, but not the Devil. There is only one devil and W does not deserve that much credit. I'll just call him the worst President in the history of our nation, and I'll guess that history will judge him so. He will have his own dues to pay to the devil in good time.

If there is one thing I find very un-endearing about our Great Leader, the leader of the free world is that what he says and what he means are after quite the opposite. For example, "When I am talking about war, I want you to know I'm really talking about peace". A direct Dubyaism. And how about the so-called "Patriot Act". They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Well, I believe this act was created with good intentions but quickly became a monster able to strip away our civil liberties in the name of justice. (And the never ending wisdom of our infallible Leader). Or who could forget the all time classic "Mission Accomplished"? It had not even begun. It is true that Chavez and other leaders of certain "third world" countries would not allow the type of free speech that they enjoyed at the U.N. However, it must also be stated as truth that they have not invaded any foreign nations under false pretenses. They have not created 1000 new terrorists for every 1 killed.

Answer 1

I think the applause was mostly in response to his comments about Bush acting like he owned the world. The applause was well deserved.

Answer 2

It is a complex issue that I will not attend to solve in my short answer. However, something can be said about why people outside USA profoundly dislikes George W. Bush. He has shown no respect for international law by having "secret" prisons around the world, has broken Geneva conventions by illegally keeping combatants in Guantanamo, and a very long etc. Of course, he got away with it because USA is the most powerful country of our age. But you should not expect people from other countries being happy about it. It is an abuse, it is unfair and, in the long run, it is unwise.

Answer 3

If there is one thing endearing about the Leader of the Free World, whatever his flaws, it is the contrast between what he says and what tinpot dictators and religious fanatics say when they attack him...What I found interesting about the speeches of Ahmedinejad and Chavez is that they seemed not to notice that in their own countries they would not have allowed anyone similar freedom to comment on them.

Answer 4

Yes he was overboard on how he expressed himself and could of done it better in by not calling him the devil even though millions feel that way. A leader of a country must conduct them self in a way that gets to the point without immature remarks like "Bring it on" and I could go on and on. Our leader is no better..think on it. But again two wrongs do not make a right...or does it????

Answer 5

Shows you where we stand with the UN countries. We may not always be right,but were the nation that supports the UN,both financially and militarily. We deserve more respect than this from them. It seems the UN in general doesn't like us,but the nations sure enjoy our financial aid and always ask for our military support. I find it odd that we remain a member of this organization.

Answer 6

i'm not opposing Bush but .... lets' face it: he has a bad history.
he is the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
He invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
He has set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest him in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
so what do you expect?

Answer 7

Because the UN (supported by your hard work) is composed of tin pot dictators. In fact it is a point of pride to them that dictators are treated exactly the same as legitimate leaders. I would rather I did not get applause at all from these types of people.

Answer 8

Since many Third World countries do not like America, anyone who "Stands up" to Bush will get the applause

Answer 9

Because you idiots elected the worst possible man to govern you..that also over Al Gore.Chavez knows what he is saying and Bush does not.That's why.

Answer 10

U nified N umskulls

In what other country would all the heads of state gather, in one building and feel safe????