You don't think Bush would have assasinated Hussein if he could have pulled it off? As I recall the US has been involved in the assasination of quite a few "troublesome" leaders around the world over the past fifty years.
Unlike assasinating say Zarqawi or Bin Laden, Bush and friend have been pretty consistent in their actions (as opposed to their words) as regards the idea that Iraqi oil (and by extension the rest of Middle Eastern oil) are their entitlement. I think Chavez is only stating the obvious.
I'm trying to figure out how to describe Chavez's claim, but I'm not sure what form of the word "moonbat" to use. I think it's, "The idea that Chavez's accusation is true is pure moonbattery." But it might be moonbat-like.
If Salvador Allende had made similar comments about Nixon, I'm sure there would have been quite a lot of sneering.
True, Chavez may be crazy, but the idea that Washington could target him simply isn't absurd on its face. This crowd LOVES the idea of a pre-1974 foreign policy.
Gotta agree with Peter and Maynard, even if it puts me on the moonbat left. (Though I really don't understand Chavez's contention that the U.S. won't get any Venezuelan oil if he's killed.) I don't put it past the Bushies to have him killed, and it's good to get it on the record that he's made the statement.
I don't believe that Chavez is engaging in moonbattery here, washerdreyer. I'll refer you to one of my very first blogposts ever, where I noted Henry Hyde, chair of the House Int'l Relations Committee, urging Bush to declare Venezuela, Brazil, and Cuba a new "Axis of Evil" on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. The rhetorical blurring of the lines between Castro, Lula da Silva, and Chavez has been intentional and ongoing for years, and we have certainly tried to assassinate Castro on more than one occasion. Then, of course, there's the fact that the Bush administration got caught trying to engineer a coup in Venezuela already.
Do you honestly believe the CIA hasn't sounded out Venezuelan military contacts about the possibility of knocking off Chavez? That would be absolutely in keeping with the least 100 years of American policy to Central and South America.
I guess I string along with the rest. I'd be shocked if we've taken assasination (esp. if it can offshored) out of the toolbox. (If we have, I'd actually prefer that we put it back in). The only remaining question is whether Chavez matters enough to use that method of "regime change" and incur all the attendent risks. That I doubt, but I my predictive score is very, very low.
I of course acknowledge multiple attempts to kill Castro, and I have noticed the odd antipathy towards Chavez that many on the right have (I'm thinking particularly of some commenters at Yglesias' and Crooked Timber who seem to just despise him). But 1) Chavez claimed that the only person who would kill him is Bush, it seems strange to me that Bush wants to kill him more than certain people in Venezuela, particularly the forces behind the recall. The current administration may be allied with those forces, but they're also acting independently.
2) I second SCMT's point that Chavez doesn't matter enough to Bush, only a certain quantity of resources are available for foreign policy goals, most of them appear to be directed towards the Middle East at this time.
3) It's not clear to me that Chavez made the statement because he thinks its true. It will certainly increase his popularity among many in Venezuela and elsewhere. It further creates an incentive for the Bush administration to prevent others from killing Chavez, if they're at all worried about bad PR.