Dear Mr Chavez,
That we have people in this country who admire and agree with you after your little speech at the United Nations today is bad enough. That we allow you to come and exercise free speech on American soil is worse, you morally-impeded hypocrite. Would that you honoured the rights of your own citizens to do the same, you sanctimonious old fraud.
You suggest moving the United Nations headquarters out of the United States. It is the first time, Mr Chavez, that I have found more than a spoonful of virtue in any of your frequent turgidity. Would you like it in Venezuela? Be our guest! You also propose that the UN “does not work.” Again we are in agreement! The UN is a disgrace, isn’t it, Chav? It’s a degraded, contemptuous organisation; like a rudderless ship with hull-holes, and it’s time to let it sink.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the UN is that it involves treating people like you, sir, as though you have something virtuous to contribute to international affairs or something worthwhile to say; it encompasses the idea that nations such as yours are on a sufficiently compatible philosophical echelon that we can actually gain from your diplomacy. You try to discredit the idea of ‘national’ sovereignty, preferring instead ‘international’ solutions. Could that be because you wish to disclaim responsibility for the feeble state of your own impoverished nation, the pathetic result of your failed communist ideology?
Yet you don’t see things quite that way, do you Mr Chavez? Instead, in your speech last week you refer to what you call the United States’ “neoliberal capitalism”, saying, “It is unpractical and unethical to sacrifice the human race by appealing in an insane manner to the validity of a socioeconomic model that has a galloping destructive capacity.” One only needs to observe the essence of the differences between our two countries to see the humour in that assertion. You want to hold up your ideology as an alternative to the system that created the single greatest economy in the world? Give me a break.
Then we come to your remarks at the UN today, at which the United States ambassador and most other credible members were wisely absent. “Yesterday the devil [Bush] came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulphur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of. … An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: The Devil’s Recipe.”
Mmmm. Profound. You must have quite a speechwriter, Chav, for that was truly the cheapest, most third-rate, worthless pile of bullshit I’ve heard from a head of state. You’ve proven in a single moment your assertion that the UN is in a terrible state with this tirade, and you won’t have any arguments from me on that point as long as asshats like you are given the podium. I’m sure the President of the United States was heartbroken by your criticism.
Nevertheless, not content with slating Bush, you later felt compelled to insult the lifestyle and culture of the American people in general: “The people of the United States should read this.. instead of the watching Superman movies.” Consuming less should be a priority for the US, “instead of looking for oil”, you say.
Eff you, Chavez. Nobody asked for your approval of our lifestyles. And, last I checked, we were buying our oil from YOU, you double-dealing, plaster-saint ass-wit. It certainly isn’t in your best interest when we find oil elsewhere, is it, Chav? Watch those dollar signs head for the horizon, would you?
Not likely, you sleazy jackass.
Yours sincerely,
John Wright
29 responses so far ↓
1 Anonymous // Sep 20, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Ahem. !!
2 Christian Socialist BELFAST // Sep 21, 2006 at 7:48 am
Christ “revolutionary”
Chavez thanked Spanish intellectual and director of Le Monde Diplomatique Ignacio Ramonet for saying that Chavez was a new type of leader. He said he is inspired by old types of leaders such as Christ, whom he described as “one of the greatest anti-imperialist fighters, the redeemers of the poor, and one of the greatest revolutionaries of the history of the world.” The President mentioned Venezuela’s independence hero Simon Bolivar, Brazil’s José Ignacio Abreu Elima, Che Guevara, “that Argentine doctor that traveled through the continent in a motorcycle and who was a witness of the U.S. invasion of Guatemala in 1955, one of the many invasion of the U.S. empire in this continent,” and Cuban President Fidel Castro.
3 Anonymous // Sep 21, 2006 at 9:02 am
Lol. Another third-world assclown dictator and his 15 minutes of fame.
4 Derek // Sep 21, 2006 at 9:09 am
This guy was an idiot, pure and simple, in his remarks, thankfully it appears that he was largely either ignored or reviled afterwards, the U.S. said it wasn’t even worth dignifying with a response!
5 S Quinney // Sep 21, 2006 at 12:49 pm
The biggest disgrace here John is the Democrats and leftists who agree with Chavez and won’t condemn what he said. We have sympathizers of this guy in our own country and they’re the main reason we’re even paying respect to the united nations anymore.
6 Christian Socialist Belfast N.I. // Sep 21, 2006 at 1:19 pm
So Quinney,
You condemn Hugo Chavez for turning on the Bush administration for failing the citizens of New Orleans who were caught in the flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina. He also accused the United States of abetting “international terrorism” by failing to arrest television evangelist Pat Robertson of the capitalistic 700 club for saying that the United States should consider assassinating Chavez.disgraceful and shameful from a man who once sought to be President of the U.S.A.and a very close friend of the White House,” Chavez said. “He publicly asked for my assassination and he’s still walking the streets.” one only knows what would have happened if this crack pot had succeeded,”
7 S Quinney // Sep 21, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Christian Socialist, was that a question? I condemn him for the same reasons John does, he’s a socialist crackpot lunatic who has failed his own people with his pathetic, patronizing philosophy and dares to lecture the United States on our own issues. By the way, the U.S. did not fail the victims of the gulf coast, it was a bloody HURRICANE that did. Why is BUSH being blamed for a natural disaster???? That is BEYOND ME. And as for Pat Robertson, the guy was merely exercising free speech and if you think he should have been arrested for what he said and later apologized for, you’re as much of a crackpot as he is.
8 Bill ,Christian Socialist // Sep 21, 2006 at 1:36 pm
There’s free speech and there’s provocation to murder, dangerous words sink ships, at least Hugo was wearing his Orange Sash HA! HA!
9 John Wright // Sep 21, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Hi all, I appreciate your comments. It seems that within the past hours two Congressional Democrats who are among Bush’s fiercest critics have slated Chavez for his comments about Bush. Representative Charles Rangel and Representative Nancy Pelosi have made the rare move of defending Bush in their comments today, which are to be welcomed - even from left-liberals!
Rangel said: “I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president - don’t come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State.”
Pelosi said: “He fancies himself as a modern day Simon Bolivar, but all he is an everyday thug.”
10 Bill Christian Socialist BELFAST // Sep 21, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Pat Robertson has apologised for his statement regarding assassinating Chavez which has to be welcomed by all right thinking Democrates.
11 Claire // Sep 22, 2006 at 12:31 am
A beautifully written letter John! LOL!
12 Christian socialist // Sep 22, 2006 at 10:18 am
Tall trees catch much wind.
Eminent persons are sure to be criticized, envied, and abused. Let
no tree aspire to be a poplar, and no man aim to be popular.
13 John Wright // Sep 23, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Bill Christian Socialist, who are you applying your quote to here, Bush or Chavez?
14 Christian Socialist // Sep 24, 2006 at 12:40 pm
George “Bush” bush by name and by nature he is hardly a political tree, he’s just a weed he has no roots. One just has to read about the roots of the Bush family and their political dynasty. George Bush’s grandfather the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of Brown Brothers Harriman who profited from involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
15 S Quinney // Sep 24, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Bill you’re very keen to go shit-hunting on the Bush family, although how this weird guilty-by-relation theory of yours actually condemns George W in any way isn’t made clear. I wonder if you’d be so keen to look for the same kind of dirt on some of your socialist heroes like this asshole Chavez.
16 S Quinney // Sep 24, 2006 at 7:32 pm
By the way, is your name Bill or Liam?
17 Christian Socialist // Sep 25, 2006 at 3:27 am
GENERATIONAL SIN.
Exo 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
18 S Quinney // Sep 25, 2006 at 7:46 am
Christian Socialist thank you, You have answered my question… generational sin…. thank you, THANK YOU Bill or Liam whatever your name is. GENERATIONAL SIN. Ah the power of rational thought.
19 John Wright // Sep 25, 2006 at 9:22 am
Christian Socialist- I agree with Quinney; any pretence of rationality on your part is now in serious question, alongside any pretence of common sense. You want to judge people based on the actions of their ancestors? What next, locking people up before they commit crimes based on crimes committed by their great-grandfathers? Looks like it’s a good thing you aren’t in charge.
20 Frank // Sep 25, 2006 at 1:28 pm
John this is why religious people shouldn’t be in charge of any governmental institution, they actually believe stuff like this, and I include Bush in that by the way.
21 Christian Socialist // Sep 25, 2006 at 1:29 pm
As I believe that my Christian faith is rational, reasonable and logical and is lived in faith in light of GODS WORD, I also understand that in the eyes of the natarual man the unsaved who live by sight and not by faith, 2Co 5:7 “for we walk by faith, not by sight”. Who find that living by faith is foolishness in their eyes, they see no rational or logical basis for belief and faith in GODS WORD. because they haven’t been illumanated by the Holy Spirit, who see the wisdom of GOD as foolishness.1Co 2:4 “and my word and my preaching was not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”. The Bible tells me every thing that I need to know as a Christian. Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
22 S Quinney // Sep 25, 2006 at 1:50 pm
That’s why we can’t debate rationally with you, your standard is that everything you interpret the bible to say is the truth and no argument that debates the bible is valid, so there’s no point in discussing anything with you since you’ll just throw up a biblical quote instead of actually having to defend your idea.
Like this generational sin garbage, if you were to take it to its logical conclusion the results are plainly stupid. Tell me, are you urging the government to hunt down Hitler’s descendants because they’re guilty of generational sin? If not, why not?
23 S Quinney // Sep 25, 2006 at 1:56 pm
By the way, is your name Bill or Liam? You’re very cagey about your identity Billiam.
24 Anonymous // Sep 25, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Liam is Irish For WILLIAM, My Protestand friends call me William or Bill or Billy my Roman Catholic friend call me Laim I don’t mind either.
25 S Quinney // Sep 25, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Well you sound like a nice guy William, but you didn’t answer my question about generational sin. Are you going after Hitler’s great-grandchildren and urging their punishment? Why not?
26 Christian Socialist // Sep 25, 2006 at 4:05 pm
The late Simon Wiesenthal and MOSAAD was looking after that and it is still active no NAZI is safe.
27 S Quinney // Sep 25, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Wiesenthal was after fugitive NAZIS, he wasn’t hunting the innocent descendants of Hitler! I don’t even know why I’m bothering with this conversation Bill, really. ????
28 Billy // Sep 26, 2006 at 11:51 am
Mat 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
29 Anonymous // Sep 27, 2006 at 5:02 am
Cost of the War in Iraq
$317,878,514,440
G W Bush has only 845 days left in office
Leave a Comment