Chavez is heading to Russia in the next few days, to discuss the purchase of five kilo-class submarines, and possibly four more advanced amur-class subs. There are questions as to how he would be able to finance them as well as how obtain the advanced training to bring them online, but there is no question from his statments that he wants them.
The financing might involve not only oil, but also drugs. As I have pointed out, Hugo needs money for financing his “Bolivarian Revolution”, i.e., his desire to control all of Latin America’s politics. For that he needs money. A huge amount of money. The drug trade is one source.
As for the advanced training, I’m sure Putin will provide the personnel as part of the deal. Don’t believe for a moment that Vlad’s going to hand Hugo valuable war weapons without keeping a firm hand in the works.
Mora also points out,
Although there are many islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf Of Mexico, and many colonial powers, it’s significant that Chavez alluded to the U.S.’s and France’s prime presences there. In the past he’s threatened Netherlands and its overseas territories, and he’s always hated Britain, but now he seems to have singled out France. While Chavez’s antipathy to the U.S. is well-known, what’s less well-known is that France’s new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has an interest in the region and a clear understanding about Chavez. He’s stepped up his ties to Venezuela’s battered neighbor, Colombia, and probably will become more active in the region as Chavez’s aggression steps up. Chavez knows this, and wants to throw out a few threat to France and the U.S. now.
This segues well with my theory on the drug trade: France has repeatedly caught tons of cocaine proceeding from Caracas in the past (including the seizing of a vessel carrying 18 tons of cocaine on March last year. I explored this connection between Chavez and the drug trade on my post of April 13, 2006 (scroll down).
Hugo may be fooling some, but he’s certainly not fooling Lech Waleska: Via Gateway Pundit
“I believe Chávez is a huge demagogue and populist who says one thing and does a quite different thing. He likes giving away what does not belong to him and tries to take advantage of people’s dissatisfaction,” he added.
One thing for sure, Hugo’s not fooling Newton
Immigration and Terrorists in the US: Connect the Dots
In a nutshell – terrorists flew under the radar in 1986, over-stayed visas, and rode the curtails of illegal Mexicans who had crossed the border all the way to citizenship. Do we want to do that again? Can we afford it?
In other, totally unrelated news, Hitchens asks, Let’s stop channelling angry Muslims
Look Forward to Anger
It’s impossible to satisfy “Rage Boy” and his ilk. It’s stupid to try.
The lives of Shiite Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Christians—to say nothing of atheists or secularists—are considered by Sunni militants to be of little or no account. And yet they accuse those who criticize them of bigotry! And many people are so anxious to pre-empt this accusation that they ventriloquize the reactions of Sunni mobs as if they were the vox populi, all the while muttering that we must take care not to offend such supersensitive people.
This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world’s Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?
We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week’s Economist, which states that Rushdie’s 1989 death warrant was “punishment for the book’s unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.” There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini’s circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.
Interesting to see that The Economist is referring to the Prophet Mohammed; I’ve been subscribing to The Economist for decades now and never once have I seen them refer to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Fred Thompson has more to say about Rushdie.
GreenMountain politics posts on Giuliani.
Go, Pundit, Go has a video on the Dems and the unions
We’ve been on the road, and I’m happy to recommend the Subway franchise for a fast lunch. You can get a freshly-made salad with as many or as few toppings as you like, without having to put up with greasy burgers or overfried, overseasoned chicken.