Replies

I think your liberal friends' drivel is just the biased view on the other side of this biased view. Allende was not a complete failure, Pinochet not a complete success. We did, in fact, help a military dictator to overthrow an elected socialist. What the people of Chile did not get was "liberation," rather an American-sponsored regime change that may have curbed socialism in Chile, but at the cost of democracy. Allende's potential damage to Chile is worse than the real damage caused by Pinochet? This spin, in particular, I find sickening:

It was also a teaching opportunity on freedom, the importance of limited government and the rule of law. It was a lob that the secretary could have hit out of the park, Allende's abuse of power being such a clear violation of classical liberal values and constitutional democracy. It was a chance to explain why even an elected president in Venezuela lacks the moral authority to trample individuals, press freedoms or property rights.

Freedom! A military dictatorship is not freedom. What about Pinochet's well-documented abuse of power, his violation of classical liberal values (other than economic) and constitutional democracy? It wasn't until 17 years later (17!) that Pinochet stepped down from power. A serious whitewash of his record. What gave Pinochet, the unelected president, the "moral authority" to trample individuals and press freedoms (oh, but he spared property rights!) The author calls Pinochet "the lesser of two evils." Here, she sounds like she sees no evil at all in Pinochet.

Question is: why did Powell spout that same drivel? Anyone who was there at the time, and I was just before and after, knows that Chile was saved from another Commie takeover. Pinochet was a hero in spite of all the liberal lies. You will recall that the liberals in the US also spouted the same anti-American hate when we helped those that finally got rid of the commie Sandinistas in El Salvador.