# Name-calling among world leaders



## Cracker Jack

A few hours ago, in a privileged speech, Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush ''diablo.''  The footage was captured by camera.  He did i not once but several times.  In a way, his act was immortalized.  Everyone knows the history of his inordinate hatred for the Dubya.

I, for one, am not a great fan of Bush.  In fact, I never liked him at all.  However, I feel that to a certain extent, he ought not be called that way by another head of state.  If it were an anonymous no one like me, it wouldn't have mattered.

Do you think that it is acceptable for statesmen to label each other with below-the-belt monickers?  Thanks in advance.


----------



## Tsoman

I think that it is ok for anyone to speak their mind. 

It was ok for the pope to "insult" islam, and it's ok for Chavez to to insult the US president if he wants to and it's ok for you to insult me.

I, for one, enjoy interesting and entertaining articles on world affairs. For this, I thank Bush, Chavez, the pope, Danish cartoonists, and Islam.


----------



## Everness

Cracker Jack said:


> A few hours ago, in a privileged speech, Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush ''diablo.''  The footage was captured by camera.  He did i not once but several times.  In a way, his act was immortalized.  Everyone knows the history of his inordinate hatred for the Dubya.
> 
> I, for one, am not a great fan of Bush.  In fact, I never liked him at all.  However, I feel that to a certain extent, he ought not be called that way by another head of state.  If it were an anonymous no one like me, it wouldn't have mattered.
> 
> Do you think that it is acceptable for statesmen to label each other with below-the-belt monickers?  Thanks in advance.



Now the devil will get p*ssed because someone compared him with W. I wonder if he is planning to sue Chavez for defamation of character.


----------



## geve

Cracker Jack said:


> Do you think that it is acceptable for statesmen to label each other with below-the-belt monickers? Thanks in advance.


Technically, "diablo" is not a below-the-belt term... It's a harsh term, but it doesn't qualify as an insult. It would rather be a vivid metaphor, or an overemphasis.

I saw the images too. It would have been a whole different matter if he had used a below-the-belt term, since it would have sounded very childish and certainly not appropriate in a politician's mouth during a public appearance. And I don't think it would be appropriate for them to call any average citizen in such a way either - the position asks for a respectful language, even if the ideas that they express are harsh or even disrespectful.

So to me the question would rather be: Are politicians entitled to reveal what they truly think about other politicians? 

Well, isn't that something they do every day? They might not always find the perfect words that will appeal to every TV channel throughout the planet, though.


----------



## Hakro

Lately, name calling among the world leaders is quite rare, but possible. Some fifty years ago it was more like a habit, wasn't it?

Now it's time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

* Candidate A*: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day. 

*Candidate B*: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. 

*Candidate C*: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. 

 Which one of these candidates would be your choice? 

 Decide first, then scroll down for the answer. 

 Candidate A: is Franklin D. Roosevelt. 
 Candidate B: is Winston Churchill. 
 Candidate C: is Adolf Hitler.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Oh my! And that last candidate`s description sounded so enticing!!
However, I do believe that to an extent the personal life of a political candidate should affect people`s decision to trust him or not and how to feel about him. After all, I wouldn`t like to know that we have elected (and, thus, somehow, formally given the green light to) a candidate who has been known to be engaged in major fraud activities or paedophilia, no matter how intelligent he might be in politics. That`s why I have always had mixed feelings about Winston with his peculiar ways and virtues. 
 I understand, nobosy is perfect, but , on the other hand, people still tend to see the head of state as the "first person", the face of the nation. And by openly accepting some appalling features or practices on his part we sort of openly recognise the acceptability of those and make people wonder why it can be wrong for them when X himself does or used to do it.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

As for Bush and Chavez, I do think that political leaders should be allowed to express their thoughts and opinions just like anybody else. The other point is that theere are rules of respect and behaviour in the human society but those only should apply to presidents as well and nothing in particular. I think, most people can effectively separate the voice of the president from the opinion of all people in the country. After all, there are opinion polls for that.


----------



## Hakro

Setwale_Charm said:


> Oh my! And that last candidate`s description sounded so enticing!!
> However, I do believe that to an extent the personal life of a political candidate should affect people`s decision to trust him or not and how to feel about him. After all, I wouldn`t like to know that we have elected (and, thus, somehow, formally given the green light to) a candidate who has been known to be engaged in major fraud activities or paedophilia, no matter how intelligent he might be in politics. That`s why I have always had mixed feelings about Winston with his peculiar ways and virtues.


 Dear Setwale, You must know how our leaders are chosen. 

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics: 

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse 
* 7 have been arrested for fraud 
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks 
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses 
* 3 have done time for assault 
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit 
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges 
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year 

Can you guess which organization this is? 

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. 

(This may be a lie but maybe not.)


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Oh, I am not being idealistic. I know what the reality IS. I was talking of what has to be set as an example and striven for. There is a Russian politician who is constantly made fun of for his bloopers but the most often quoted one he has is so true and sums it all. he said: we were trying for the better but it turned out the usual way. That`s it, we should strive for the healthier pattern and then we shall have it a more or less decent way. If we are not striving for the better, then we are not getting it any decent way.


----------



## Daddyo

Everness said:


> Now the devil will get p*ssed because someone compared him with W. I wonder if he is planning to sue Chavez for defamation of character.


 

Nope. The devil doesn't care. He has already put aside grand places for those guys in his domain.


----------



## .   1

Hakro said:


> Dear Setwale, You must know how our leaders are chosen.
> 
> Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:
> 
> * 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
> * 7 have been arrested for fraud
> * 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
> * 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
> * 3 have done time for assault
> * 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
> * 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
> * 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
> * 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
> * 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
> 
> Can you guess which organization this is?
> 
> It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
> 
> (This may be a lie but maybe not.)


I received exactly the same chain e-mail claiming that the above statistics related to Australian politicians.
My belief is that it is a lie.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Now the devil will get p*ssed because someone compared him with W. I wonder if he is planning to sue Chavez for defamation of character.


This is cute. You do have a sense of humour.
I am happy for world leaders to go at it hammer and tongs with words but leave me and my mates and children out of it.
I am also quite happy to have the elected leaders duke it out to their hearts content mano a mano.
What I find pornographic is some pencil necked little dweeb making noises then sending in the troops to sort the situation out and thereby murdering far too many people.
We should go back to the old Scottish principle.
Any leader who led his troops into a war that he had instigated and lost was executed by his own troops.

.,,

P.S.  I am intrigued by your constant references to tendentious issues but your odd use of * in even mildly colourful words.  Do you really think that using p*ssed makes you appear to be cultured?


----------



## Victoria32

Cracker Jack said:


> A few hours ago, in a privileged speech, Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush ''diablo.''  The footage was captured by camera.  He did i not once but several times.  In a way, his act was immortalized.  Everyone knows the history of his inordinate hatred for the Dubya.
> 
> I, for one, am not a great fan of Bush.  In fact, I never liked him at all.  However, I feel that to a certain extent, he ought not be called that way by another head of state.  If it were an anonymous no one like me, it wouldn't have mattered.
> 
> Do you think that it is acceptable for statesmen to label each other with below-the-belt monickers?  Thanks in advance.


It happens... Ronald Reagan called the USSR the 'Evil Empire' and said into an open mic that the bombs would start flying within minutes. The Russians went to Red Alert. This was about 1986, and we nearly had WWIII then! 
That sort of stupidity is a lot worse in my opinion - plus which, the CIA has tried three times to overthrow Chavez, he has a right to be annoyed!


----------



## Victoria32

Hakro said:


> Dear Setwale, You must know how our leaders are chosen.
> 
> Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:
> 
> * 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
> * 7 have been arrested for fraud
> * 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
> * 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
> * 3 have done time for assault
> * 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
> * 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
> * 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
> * 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
> * 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
> 
> Can you guess which organization this is?
> 
> It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
> 
> (This may be a lie but maybe not.)


It sounds horribly likely to me, Hakro...


----------



## Alxmrphi

I absolutely love Chavez and his ongoing defiance of the U.S, I love the way the White House say he is a crook and do the most poorest job at painting a bad picture of him but they can't, because he has put so much Oil-money into regenerating land for the poor that it is so obvious he is doing an awful lot for his country.

I know a few Venezuelans who don't like him and disagree, but I can't help but like him and what he stands for.

And for this, and reference to the question, I do think it's acceptable and he has now become my top favourite world leader.


----------



## maxiogee

Well at least he didn't call him a silver-tongued diablo!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I don't get it Tony?


----------



## heidita

Alex_Murphy said:


> I absolutely love Chavez and his ongoing defiance of the U.S, I love the way the White House say he is a crook and do the most poorest job at painting a bad picture of him but they can't, because he has put so much Oil-money into regenerating land for the poor that it is so obvious he is doing an awful lot for his country.
> 
> I know a few Venezuelans who don't like him and disagree, but I can't help but like him and what he stands for.
> 
> And for this, and reference to the question, I do think it's acceptable and he has now become my top favourite world leader.


 
As long as he doesn't appear in the Forbes list, ok.

The link to show _ the few_ who don't like him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_2685000/2685881.stm


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> Well at least he didn't call him a silver-tongued diablo!





Alex_Murphy said:


> I don't get it Tony?



Silver tongued devil = smooth talking rogue


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ahh, I see Tony



			
				heideta said:
			
		

> As long as he doesn't appear in the Forbes list, ok.
> 
> The link to show _ the few_ who don't like him.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/lat...00/2685881.stm



No hablo español .. :s


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Well at least he didn't call him a silver-tongued diablo!


Silver-tongued - Dubya - bah ha ha ha.

.,,


----------



## ireney

Well that's one "diablo" that can't take the shape of a snake (where is he going to put the ear-piece if he does), who can't use his cunning to commit evil and whose  powers of conviction (by using his very own flowing arguments ) is at an all time low!

If name calling is banned in general (and I mean any one word or periphrastical name-calling) we'll be out of politicians. Honestly now, how many politicians do you know who don't spend most of their times bad mouthing their opponent one way or another instead of spending that time talking about their programme etc?

Most of the times it's not "I am right" what they say but "he is wrong".


----------



## Cracker Jack

Thanks a lot for your varied responses.  But I still maintain that politicians, like celebrities are public properties.  They are supposed to be worthy of emulation especially for the formidable young minds.  Whatever they do in the corridors of power is easily picked up by the rest of the world.

These words last few seconds in delivery but the consequences linger for ages.  Along with this, come the euphemisms.  Just like Oval Office to Oral Office.  I still remember the late Ronald Reagan saying a mouthful of S.O.B. s captured by camera.


----------



## Yuribear

Well, the world will be in a far better place if people were more respectful of each other. I cannot even imagine my dearest Bapu (M.K. Gandhi) ever insulting anyone, that is why he gain the respect even of his oponents. Too bad many people do not consider it important to strenghthen their virtues in order to win tough battles. It is not by who is tougher or more rogue that brings a deep change, but it brings a tougher reaction from the oponent.

As we say in Spanish (lo cortés no quita lo valiente= being corteous does not make you less courageous). I cannot admire any man or woman who is not in control of him/her self, for how can he/she control anything else?


----------



## Fernando

In the case of Chávez, he is performing the clown role he performs soooooo well. He emphasized "diablo", he said "it smelt to sulphur" and said several times the devil had been there (in UN) the day before.

"Diablo" (said seriously) is not exactly a nice term in Spanish. The same speech in a company or a group of friends would end in a fight. If I said "diablo" in a public speech in my company I would be fired. 

On my part, I love hypocrisy. It is the basis of civilization and tolerance.


----------



## Victoria32

Alex_Murphy said:


> I absolutely love Chavez and his ongoing defiance of the U.S, I love the way the White House say he is a crook and do the most poorest job at painting a bad picture of him but they can't, because he has put so much Oil-money into regenerating land for the poor that it is so obvious he is doing an awful lot for his country.
> 
> I know a few Venezuelans who don't like him and disagree, but I can't help but like him and what he stands for.
> 
> And for this, and reference to the question, I do think it's acceptable and he has now become my top favourite world leader.


Definitely, he is one of my favourites! Especially since so many ordinary Americans believe he is an unelected dictator...


Yuribear said:


> Well, the world will be in a far better place if people were more respectful of each other. I cannot even imagine my dearest Bapu (M.K. Gandhi) ever insulting anyone, that is why he gain the respect even of his oponents. Too bad many people do not consider it important to strenghthen their virtues in order to win tough battles. It is not by who is tougher or more rogue that brings a deep change, but it brings a tougher reaction from the oponent.
> 
> As we say in Spanish (lo cortés no quita lo valiente= being corteous does not make you less courageous). I cannot admire any man or woman who is not in control of him/her self, for how can he/she control anything else?


I don't think Chavez was not in conrol of himself... On TV he seemed amused! 


Fernando said:


> In the case of Chávez, he is performing the clown role he performs soooooo well. He emphasized "diablo", he said "it smelt to sulphur" and said several times the devil had been there (in UN) the day before.
> 
> "Diablo" (said seriously) is not exactly a nice term in Spanish. The same speech in a company or a group of friends would end in a fight. If I said "diablo" in a public speech in my company I would be fired.
> 
> On my part, I love hipocresy. It is the basis of civilization and tolerance.


Hypocrisy, yes, politicians are always accused of that.


----------



## Fernando

Thank you for the correction. I fixed it.


----------



## Yuribear

Victoria32 said:


> I don't think Chavez was not in conrol of himself... On TV he seemed amused!



What I mean has a deeper meaning. Being disrespectful unfortunately has become "accepted" socially. It is just looking beyond the act itself and looking at the consequence of your acts. The methods you use will determine your result, used to say Gandhi. If you want respect, then you SHOW respect yourself, be respectful even to the person you hate the most. Become the change you want the world to be. That is being in control of your acts and of the goals you so highly pursue.

I will give you another example, Mr. Lopez Obrador in Mexico called Chachalaca President Fox. This simple act, cost him that a lot of mexicans that supported him changed their mind because even if few like Mr. Fox, he is still the elected President. Obrador realized his big blunder and learnt from the lesson. Never again has he called names publicly another state man.

In politics, in particular you have to look at the character type, not at the funniest or dare-davil type, if you want a good politician. Many talk, few walk the talk.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Fair enough, but does that explain why a lot of people admire Chavez for saying what he did, I am one of them. The logic doesn't work there. Though you're point is perfectly sound, but "sound" advice, isn't always right. (I'm not implying you're wrong here, btw)


----------



## ElaineG

Alex_Murphy said:


> Fair enough, but does that explain why a lot of people _admire Chavez for saying what he did_, I am one of them. The logic doesn't work there. Though you're point is perfectly sound, but "sound" advice, isn't always right. (I'm not implying you're wrong here, btw)


 

That's what I don't get: You admire Chavez for saying that the devil came to the United Nations, crossing himself, and then talking about the smell of sulfur?

I can see admiring his critique of American foreign policy, or admiring the way he's used oil money in his own country and abroad, but to admire a grown man and (allegedly) democratically elected leader of a nation for coming to the most august international body we have (for better or worse) and calling another world leader a "devil" is strange to me.

Believe me, I do not support most of President Bush's policies. But I wouldn't speak that way in a meeting or in a courtroom, no less in the most important venue I can imagine. To me it further cheapens the political discourse and is an easy use of low-level demagoguery not unworthy of.... that master of words, W. himself.


----------



## Yuribear

Alex_Murphy said:


> Fair enough, but does that explain why a lot of people admire Chavez for saying what he did, I am one of them. The logic doesn't work there. Though you're point is perfectly sound, but "sound" advice, isn't always right. (I'm not implying you're wrong here, btw)



Many, feel angry at what is going on in the world, at all the injustices done, at all the needless killing, and I can go on endlessly. Then comes a powerful man that dares to bully the bully. So people like that, in a way they feel it takes a little of their hopelessness away. He also tries to help a little bit the less priviledged ones. They feel justice is being done. But in reality it solves nothing. 

If you want to bake a cake follow the recipe of the best cook you know. You want to follow an expert on the subject. Same goes for peace and reform. I know violence brings only more violence, verbal or physical. I follow the satyagrahi recipe.


----------



## Alxmrphi

What gets reported to us on the BBC Elaine, is how American media spins things, and it's become a thing if you're glued to the News channels like me, to know that American media have done an absolute flop of a job to paint a bad picture of Chavez.

Now there is no way I can criticise you're views, but from what I have seen I don't know what comes through on your TV about him, but we're aware of a campaign to make people think he is an evil dictator when we know he isn't.

Without knowing what you know, and based on your comments refering to him, I assumed maybe you have believed the media, but I don't think I have any right to believe that you have believed anything, so I am not going to assume anything about what you know.

From what I know, he was elected and is in the process of changing the constitution so he remains president-for-life. That's not an unelected leader, can you explain what you mean by "allegedly democratically elected leader" ?


----------



## ElaineG

> is in the process of changing the constitution so he remains president-for-life. That's not an unelected leader, can you explain what you mean by "allegedly democratically elected leader" ?


 
Your first and your second sentences say it all, Alex. In my book, there is no such thing as a democratically elected leader for life. That's a dictator, pure and simple.

Democracy=rule of the people.  There can be no rule of the people when someone in power gives themselves unlimited power for an unlimited term.  Latin America has an unfortunate history of populist leaders who become intransigent dictators.

I ask you, why would anyone who respected the will of the people need or want to change the constitution to give himself power for life?

Remember, Alex, the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.  

Read some Amnesty International reports on Venezuela (Amnesty International -- for whom I will admit I volunteer -- has never been accused, to my knowledge, of being a tool of the Bush administration).


----------



## .   1

ElaineG said:


> Your first and your second sentences say it all, Alex. In my book, there is no such thing as a democratically elected leader for life. That's a dictator, pure and simple.


It would appear that I was not the only person to spot this glaring contradiction.
This person can only be considered to be democratic while he remains democratic and Leader-For-Life is most certainly not democratic.

.,,


----------



## heidita

Alex_Murphy said:


> but we're aware of a campaign to make people think he is an evil dictator when we know he isn't.


 
That's really taking a "mouth full" ( no offence) as I can see how nearby you live. You must be really involved in the country's business to know so much.




> From what I know, he was elected and is in the process of changing the constitution so he remains president-for-life.


 
This tiny fact speaks for itself, yes, very democratic indeed.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Oh I'm sorry, I can only talk about things I nearly live by, I just cannot follow things that go on in the world all day long?

I'm unemployed!!!!


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Is it really the US' attempts to slander or portray an evil picture of Chavez?  I know several people from Venezuela who would disagree with you.  How would you like it if you were to travel abroad and not allowed to carry extra currency beyond what is alloted to you by the state?  Or if your government tells you your house is large enough not only for your own family, but X number of people can fit here with you?  Would you still admire him if he said you had too much?  All your life's work, your house and business, is too much for yourself?  These are not hypothetical questions.  These are accounts of real people who have fled their country.


----------



## heidita

Things have the tendency to look quite different from a nearer perspective than from a far away one. 

In any case, how would you justify his "intention" to become a leader-for -life? Is there any justification for that at all? He must be as convinced as you are that he is the best of the best the country can get. And for life! That 's really something. Fortunately, in other countries you criticize this could never happen. Fortunately, too, both you and I live in countries where this is unthinkable. That's why we can talk.....It would never happen to us , after all!

By the way, have you opened the link of the "few" people who disagree with him, we will surely soon see in political prison, like in Cuba?


----------



## rsweet

I think if GW can say over and over that certain countries "... constitute an axis of evil" then the gloves are definitely off as far as name calling goes. On the other hand, I'm so tired of politicians in the US resorting to name calling and negative political ads that I sometimes feel like not voting at all. If you need to make some sort of comparison, fine. But please include what positive thing you have to offer while you're bashing the other guy.


----------



## Victoria32

rsweet said:


> I think if GW can say over and over that certain countries "... constitute an axis of evil" then the gloves are definitely off as far as name calling goes.


Absolutely I agree, Ms Sweet!


----------



## cuchuflete

Does Chávez have the right to act as he did?  Without a doubt, he has that right.

Is he Mr. Nice?  No more so than his nemesis.  

He tried to lead an armed rebellion, in 1992 if I'm not mistaken, to very undemocratically take control of the Venezuelan government.  

Millions of Venezolanos adore him.  Millions of Venezolanos despise him.  In style, he is far too similar to W to win my affection.  I can agree with some of his policies and aims, while recognizing him for what he is, and some of that is as repellant as Bush.


----------



## Alxmrphi

There is an article in this weeks Time magazine that solidified how much I love him.

Since 9/11, Bush's administration have been flying around the world and taking over countries and making threats to others, in a mannar that really suggests they think they own the world.

Chavez said he hates that and wants everyone to realise that ever country is its own and we aren't all under America's command, by defending those and more moral rights that I see wrong with the world, I'll see if I can find the article and write it closer to that.


----------



## Yuribear

rsweet said:


> I'm so tired of politicians in the US resorting to name calling and negative political ads that I sometimes feel like not voting at all.



I couldn't agree with you more!!! they divert the attention of the real issues of what is really their program. In Mexico they copied this infamous behaviour these past elections, resulting in the fact that nobody talked really about a program to deal with the ever increasing violence, NAFTA related problems (which are causing major emmigration), environment, education, health, etc. etc.

Alex, as far as the US, this country is composed by a wide variety of people. None of my friends voted for Bush... there are many people who think differently, process the information and know better than to rely on what Fox news (right winged news) have to say. Many people are not moved by fear... which seems to be the mainstream now-a-days. But to say that HC is a great leader only because he attacks Bush... proves nothing about his character, except that he needs to learn manners and diplomacy.


----------



## Alxmrphi

He isn't someone who is scared and curves to America's influence, which I think is a rare jewel of a quality in a world leader that, this world should have now.

He has also shown to have the poorer people's interests at heart by the way he has handled poverty in his country, I think these two things show a half-good world leader, which rockets him up to the highest of the high in world leaders in my opinion.


----------



## John-Paul

What was Chavez thinking? When you are addressing conservative self-righteous individuals you don't call them names, they want people to do that, because that's what makes them stronger. Chavez should have applied a little reverse psychology; compliment fellow leader Bush with the way he is consolidating his presidential power and restricting the authority of American courts. That would upset Bush more than anything else, a pat on the back from his pal Hugo.


----------



## Poetic Device

I don't think he--just like any buisenessman--should call another of his practice/trade any names as if he was back in high school.  Politics, too, is a business.  The only difference between it and the rest of the businesses is that it is perhaps a tad dirtier and more poeple pay closer sttention to it.  As a human, however, he had every right to call Bush el diablo.


----------



## Victoria32

John-Paul said:


> What was Chavez thinking? When you are addressing conservative self-righteous individuals you don't call them names, they want people to do that, because that's what makes them stronger. Chavez should have applied a little reverse psychology; compliment fellow leader Bush with the way he is consolidating his presidential power and restricting the authority of American courts. That would upset Bush more than anything else, a pat on the back from his pal Hugo.


A very good point, John Paul!


----------

