Chavez Speech Might Be Instructive For America

Joe Bell

In his recent speech before the United Nations General Assembly, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez referred to President Bush as “the devil” and a “world dictator”. Referencing Bush’s recent speech at the U.N., Chavez said he spoke “as if he owned the world.”

Is Chavez right? Here’s the record. Under Bush’s leadership the United States liberated Afghanistan and Iraq and is helping rebuild those nations. Is the U.S. tightening its grip on Iraq? To the contrary, on September 21, Iraq took control of security in the southern province of Dhi Qar. Conquering nations do not cede control – they intensify control.

Of course the world knows these things. The world knows that if America were the type of aggressive nation its detractors claim, there would be no safe place on the planet and America’s critics would either be silent or be gone. But America does not use its power irresponsibly. The world knows that as well, and the fact that America desires peace is one of the main reasons its enemies know that irrational criticism of America is cost-free and that attacking U.S. interests, at least until September 11, 2001, was also pretty much cost-free.

The world is rapidly being transformed into George Orwell’s 1984. It is a world where good is viewed as evil; where dictators enjoy the same rights as legitimate leaders, and where justice is called unjust. As Bush was labeled the devil, members of the General Assembly applauded and chuckled. That is the real story here and it goes far deeper that the ranting of a South American leader. The question is: Why is a nation that has done so much good for so many people for so long the object of revulsion at the U.N., the organization that claims to be the citadel of the principles America has spent generations defending?

Answer: The U.N. is a fraud. Before it can rightly be called the world’s tower of justice its members must summon the will to distinguish between good and evil and too many members have yet to demonstrate that ability. For five months America postponed military action against Saddam Hussein while the U.N. discussed how it might convince the tyrant to comply with the truce he had signed and to obey the U.N. resolutions he ignored. The debate was a transparent tactic used by nations that wanted no action taken. Jed Babbin, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for President George H.W. Bush, has said during those months Saddam Hussein hid weapons, bought weapons from France and Russia and welcomed fighters from Syria and elsewhere who would oppose the U.S.-led coalition. The U.N. is not only useless in the fight for freedom and justice; it actively works against the defense of those principles.

In the U.N., dictators receive the same rights and courtesies that are extended to nations that ensure civil rights for their people. In the U.N. there is no difference between the United States and Cuba; between Japan and Syria. The U.N. must understand that all men are created equal, but not all nations. Such a morally vacant organization is incapable of defending human dignity and justice around the world because it will not defend those principles in its own halls. When the president of the nation that is leading the effort to defeat the global terrorist network is called “the devil” and the statement is applauded, only the most morally obtuse will fail to acknowledge that the world has tumbled down the rabbit hole.

America’s enemies and competitors are watching the steps the nation is taking, and not taking, to defend itself. They see officials at the highest levels of government who are more interested in defending America’s enemies than in defending America.

After America was struck on 9/11 it was well publicized that U.S. borders were porous. Yet it was not until September 13, 2006, that the House passed the “Secure Fence Act,” which calls for a fence to prevent unlawful entry and the use of technology to enhance security. The bill still has to go through the Senate. Illegal immigration was a problem long before 9/11. It has shamefully taken decades to get congressional action.

For two weeks disgruntled Republicans, led by Senator John McCain, fought the Bush Administration over rules regarding the prosecution and interrogation of captured combatants. If the issues were not so serious the discussion would be laughable. America is at war with a global terrorist network that respects neither national nor moral boundaries and it is U.S. officials who furrow their brows over what the world community will think if captured fighters are kept awake in cold rooms being serenaded at loud decibels by rock music.

The current war demands America and its allies gather and accurately interpret intelligence. The war will not be won by capturing territory and it will not conclude with a peace treaty. It will end when one side can no longer – or will no longer – fight. In order for the West to win it must know what the enemy is thinking and planning.

Bush proposed a Code for Military Commissions that would apply to enemy combatants. It called for fair notice of the charges against them, attorneys paid for by U.S. taxpayer dollars and the presumption of innocence.

On Friday it was announced that the Republican mavericks had reached accord with Bush on the treatment of detainees. Congress will look at the proposal next week. Under the agreement the White House abandoned its demand that a defendant could be convicted without having seen all the evidence against him. Congressman Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has expressed concern over the sharing of evidence with a defendant because it could reveal classified information. To say Hunter’s concern is warranted is an understatement. Only a nation indifferent to its security needs would allow such a provision.

America politicians have wrung their hands over warrantless eavesdropping, world opinion and the rights of terrorists. The enemy simply wants to win. If the enemy is to have constitutional protections once captured why not grant them the right to keep and bear arms?

McCain said he wants to ensure America maintains the moral high ground. The reasons why America is engaged in the war assures the nation that moral stature. One can be certain that America’s adversaries – those who speak at the U.N. as well as those who speak on video about future attacks - will not adopt a kindly view of America simply because certain laws are passed.

In the swirl of all these issues, the Chavez speech was a small event. It was, however, another in a long line of warnings that America’s adversaries are vocal and volatile. They are comfortable issuing their verbal assaults, even within our borders, and they do not plan to tone down their rhetoric or their activities. The chatter coming from Washington indicates the federal government has yet to get serious about the war, and the world knows it.

###

Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com