The Fine Art of Blaming America for Everything

Ed Lasky
The source of the liberal, far-left mindset, blame America, counsels isolationism in the face of threats, standing down instead of standing up for people in distress who labor under dictatorial rule. This is not a policy that John F. Kennedy would follow. He promised "America would bear any burden, meet any hardship. oppose any foe, in order to assure the surviavl and success of liberty"

After all , Barack Obama himself blamed Iranian attacks on US soldiers in Iraq on America being in Iran's neighborhood ; has counseled listening to the grievances of Muslim tyrants via a Muslim nation summit should he become President; has talked of the legitimate grievances of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Now the Los Angeles Times blamese America for Hugo Chavez's dictatorship?

Perhaps Chavez's lust for power would have led him to this point regardless of external events. Yet because the intelligence decree is designed to minimize assassination or coup plots and other national security threats, Washington's culpability in fueling his paranoia cannot be overlooked.

This is how the Bush administration's failed policy in South America -- sending guns and military equipment while ignoring the desperate poverty of the masses, treating the region's elected leaders with disdain and, yes, tacitly supporting a 2002 coup attempt against Chavez -- has played out. Instead of agile diplomacy,Washington has delivered blunders, bluster and gaffes that confound diplomatic efforts and exacerbate tensions. The intrusion of a U.S. Navy jet into Venezuela's airspace is one recent example. Venezuela says the jet was on a spy mission to test whether its presence would be detected; Pentagon officials say it experienced navigational difficulties. What's certain is that the incident gave credence to Chavez's allegations of U.S. plotting.

The best course now for Washington is to do nothing. Venezuelans beat back Chavez's first power grab, defeating his constitutional referendum in December, and there is already vigorous opposition to the intelligence decree. For the U.S. to interfere would only validate Chavez's suspicions and weaken the opposition.



Washington is "culpable" for Chavez's "lust for power?"

This goes far beyond blaming America first and enters territory usually reserved for the truly paranoid whackos among us.

Considering the source, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised.
The source of the liberal, far-left mindset, blame America, counsels isolationism in the face of threats, standing down instead of standing up for people in distress who labor under dictatorial rule. This is not a policy that John F. Kennedy would follow. He promised "America would bear any burden, meet any hardship. oppose any foe, in order to assure the surviavl and success of liberty"

After all , Barack Obama himself blamed Iranian attacks on US soldiers in Iraq on America being in Iran's neighborhood ; has counseled listening to the grievances of Muslim tyrants via a Muslim nation summit should he become President; has talked of the legitimate grievances of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Now the Los Angeles Times blamese America for Hugo Chavez's dictatorship?

Perhaps Chavez's lust for power would have led him to this point regardless of external events. Yet because the intelligence decree is designed to minimize assassination or coup plots and other national security threats, Washington's culpability in fueling his paranoia cannot be overlooked.

This is how the Bush administration's failed policy in South America -- sending guns and military equipment while ignoring the desperate poverty of the masses, treating the region's elected leaders with disdain and, yes, tacitly supporting a 2002 coup attempt against Chavez -- has played out. Instead of agile diplomacy,Washington has delivered blunders, bluster and gaffes that confound diplomatic efforts and exacerbate tensions. The intrusion of a U.S. Navy jet into Venezuela's airspace is one recent example. Venezuela says the jet was on a spy mission to test whether its presence would be detected; Pentagon officials say it experienced navigational difficulties. What's certain is that the incident gave credence to Chavez's allegations of U.S. plotting.

The best course now for Washington is to do nothing. Venezuelans beat back Chavez's first power grab, defeating his constitutional referendum in December, and there is already vigorous opposition to the intelligence decree. For the U.S. to interfere would only validate Chavez's suspicions and weaken the opposition.



Washington is "culpable" for Chavez's "lust for power?"

This goes far beyond blaming America first and enters territory usually reserved for the truly paranoid whackos among us.

Considering the source, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised.