George Shitforbrains needs to read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" before he spouts off about American leadership south of the border. that might give him a hint of why we aren't the trusted big brother to Latin and South America. Propping up dictators, assassinating leaders, facilitating exploitation and financing death squads tends to cause a bit of resentment. And I'm no leftist socialist Chavez supporter. He sucks ass too. I'm just an honest American who's unafraid to condemn the bad acts of those who pretend to speak in my name.
What a fucking embarrassment. Daddy should have told him how things were done and by whom down there. Instead, ignorant George further cements his legacy as Most Clueless President Ever.
Can a few people chime in with reviews of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"? His other book involves him becoming a shapeshifting shaman, so, right away that's a bit of a strike against his credibility. Reviewers at Amazon also mention that he doesn't really have the details to back up his sweeping claims. While his claims are exciting (USA/IMF/WorldBank deliberately extend too much credit to poor nations, so they can get them deep into debt and then dictate fiscal and monetary policy), this book doesn't seem like a credible enough source to back them up.
Anyone read it? Or know of better sources for the same stuff?
Posted by texas dem at November 7, 2005 12:39 PMAnd of course I accept your positive review, pessimist, I just gotta admit that the shapeshifting book has me sketched out.
Posted by texas dem at November 7, 2005 12:54 PMI read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." I think it is a valid account, I have no problem believing that we engage in such activities. It's an interesting book. I recommend it.
Posted by ann at November 7, 2005 01:10 PMYou don't have to take Perkins' word for it. Our unglamorous role in the southern Americas isn't a well kept secret.
Ask Oliver North. He'll tell you all about it.
Posted by God Of War at November 7, 2005 01:23 PMIf texas dem wasn't so GOP Tex@$$ dumb, he'd know that assaults by Americans on Central and South American territory date back to at least 1853, when William Walker decided that white men were necessary to govern south of the Rio Grande.
And he will still wonder why Latin America isn't fond of Owwer Leedur even though I gave him the answer to the question!
Posted by pessimist at November 7, 2005 05:16 PMHey bucko:
I'm a liberal faggot who lives in San Fran-fucking-cisco. I voted Green before I ever voted Blue. You should know by now that you don't know who you're talking to on the internet, and you shouldn't run around making assumptions. I was civil to you in my post, particularly my second when I went out of my way to express that I DID respect your judgment, I just wanted a more detailed second or third from other readers. (I'd investigated this book myself only days ago and come away uncertain.) I don't appreciate your goddamned rush to judgment.
I realize this is your blog, but that wasn't very good manners.
Back to substance, I'm QUITE aware that the history of the USA in Latin America SUCKS, from Pinochet to Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, Colombia, and those are just the extreme cases. I am fucking AWARE of our history in the region. All I wanted confirmed was this author's credibility to document definitively the things he claims to document; i.e., the fact that WorldBank/IMF/USAid/USGov deliberately extended excessive credit to Latin American regimes as a way of buying control over their governments. (Not to mention that the author also claims to have reasonable personal proof that the US carried out clandestine assassinations of presidents of Panama and Ecuador.) I don't doubt the possibility or likelihood of such things, however I want to know that this guy was actually in a position to know the things he claims to know, and that his proof is actually high-quality. In other words, just like CURVEBALL, I don't want to accept a source as passing on evidence and proof, just cause I like and am inclined to believe his story. My standards for evidence are high whether I'm sympathetic or not. It's called healthy skepticism, and it's a good way to avoid being burned. The shapeshifter book and the Amazon reviews mean that in this case, I think my skepticism is appropriate.
There was also NOTHING in my post to indicate that I distrusted the broad liberal narrative of US-LatinAmerican relations; I said I found the thesis exciting, and that I wanted better sources for the same information. People who decided I didn't know shit about US-LatinAmerican relations -- or that I was a GOP shill with my head up my ass -- jumped the gun.
And cause I know someone will bitch and moan, my handle is "texas dem" because I USED to live in Texas. The presence of a state in my handle is NOT an excuse for rushing to judgment.
Posted by texas dem at November 7, 2005 06:11 PMSorry if I've got too much of a chip on my shoulder, but I really don't appreciate that and longtime users of the internet ought to know better.
Posted by texas dem at November 7, 2005 06:13 PMTht's n dmntd dbl stndrd tht dnncs th S fr mgnd crms whl lnzng Ch srl mrdrr Gvr.
[Editor: ignore=off]Maybe you should ask them why they like Che better than George, Bennie.
Posted by pessimist at November 7, 2005 07:40 PMThat's one demented double standard that denounces the US for imagined crimes while lionizing Che serial murderer Guevara.
Posted by Bendito at November 7, 2005 07:25 PM
_______
Che Guevera can suck you off as far as I'm concerned.
I'm anti-asshole across the ideological spectrum, which means I'm anti you AND anti-the-corpse-attached-to-your-member, Che.
You're both on my shit list. A bad place to be.
Posted by God Of War at November 7, 2005 07:54 PMNobody has done anything until he can lend to the prosecution of the rascals on crimes against humanity. Every week enough passes to put many government employees on the chopping block. So, do it. If you can't, abandon blogging for a more productive hobby such as knitting wool socks.
Posted by bumpedoff3 at November 7, 2005 11:08 PM