[tarheelswamprat]

It kind of is Bush’s fault. ... Bush initially supported the Venezuelan forces that had briefly expelled Chavez, but as soon as there was anger from the Dems and left and howls of outrage at the loss of one of their leading darlings, he backed down. This not only allowed Chavez to resume power, and in fact become much more powerful, it abandoned the people who had risked everything to get him out. It also showed that we would do nothing to help, and led to the unopposed spread of radical Marxism to several other countries (Ecuador and Bolivia, particularly) that were actually struggling capitalist democracies at the beginning of Bush’s tenure.

Spot on. With a very few exceptions, there has been a consistent pattern of failure and/or refusal by Bush to support allies and friends who have come under fire from the media and his political enemies, and an absolutely mind-boggling pattern of failure and refusal to stand up to them and defend himself.

For all of President Bush's good qualities, and they are many, especially compared to his predecessor, this aspect of his persona indicates a major, fundamental character flaw that history will show has cost him, our country, and many of our nation's friends and allies around the world dearly.

[markomalley]

You both are right; however, that is not the way it would be spun, though. It would not be spun that we haven’t supported our friends: it would be spun that Bush’s aggressive policies in the M.E. made poor-little Vlad feel threatened.

That’s what I meant by “Bush’s fault”