Terribly sorry, but I have to take slight offence at this post, which since its more political in nature than most at this excellent site, I feel I have a fair beef.

First, about democratic responsibilities, Venezuela is lead by a very popular democratic leader (who even occasionally posts here:)), in elections that were internationally verified, using electronic voting that did print out receipts. True, he is not popular among the Venezuela middle class, but is very popular with the poor, where he is spreading some of the oil wealth.

Second, in the US, you have elections between two parties of millionaires, with results for the last two elections that have been seriously called into question (blackboxvoting.org). The results are a spread between the rich and poor that is second to none in the industrialized world. The oil wealth definitely does not get spread democratically.

Third, both Venezuela and Iran are the victims of US imperial meddling. Iran, in 1953 had its socialist leader deposed with the help of the States, and Venezeula has recently fought off a coup/assasination attempt after the US failed in succesfully backing a party in elections.

Bush has been a disaster for your country not for starting a war of aggression, torturing and running a series of gulags, all things which your government and quite a few others have done for a long time, but Bush's disaster has been in doing it so ineptly that now the whole world is quite aware of the US's imperialism.

I don't think he was dissing Venezuela's democracy.  Unless he was implying Norway isn't a democracy, either.  ;-)

But I was bemused this evening to hear Lou Dobbs of CNN refer to Chavez as a "strongman."  Ordinarily, I like Lou Dobbs, but a strongman???  That's way out of line.  Someone who was democratically elected is not a "strongman."

Fair comments, worried. I'm from UK rather than US, so I might share some of your perspective.

Castro in Cuba has been demonised by the USA for 50 years, yet he seems to have done a pretty good job compared with similar countries in Caribbean and central america, particularly considering the trade sanctions etc the USA have imposed. Chavez seems to be similar so the US demonises him.

The US supports regimes when it believes they are in its interest, seeks to undermine regimes that it thinks are not, it has been consistent in this. Democracy or what is good for the country has f*ck all to do with how the US behaves.

I despair over the US electoral system. It has served the US and the world ill. Any close election (within 10%) should be considered suspect now that unverifiable voting is used for near 70% of votes. If similar voting methods were imposed in UK we would riot, I am sure of that.

Yes, the US has meddled in Iran, and many other countries closer to home, in illicit ways, but so did the UK in its day. After all, it was UK who invented Iraq back in 1924. global powers tend to behave so.

I agree that Bush has been a disaster for opinion of the US abroad, most US citizens aren't really aware of how bad. Few have any concept of life outside the USA: their media ignore it, very few of them travel. I had visited more countries before I was 18 than GW Bush had when he became president.

I recently had a little exposure to just this, when I traveled to Australia (our ally, fellow contributor of troops to the Iraq debacle, and home to my wife's sister and her husband).  Asked by an Australian customs and immigration official at the Sydney airport "Which country I was from, I replied "America", and handed him my passport.
He grinned slyly and said,
"Ah, United States of the World, eh mate?"

The US has apparently returned to the concept of colonial imperialism, just under a new guise, while at home we slide ever further to the right, toward the kind of creeping fascism (in Mussolini's sense of the word, the merging of corporate and State) George Orwell worried about.

Good articles, sir. Thank you.