[lbo-talk] Chavez is no prince and neither is Ahmadinejad (was: Chavez, bush, the devil and jon stewart)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On 10/1/06, Michael Hoover <mhhoover at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, ylle521 at highstream.net <ylle521 at highstream.net> wrote:
> > And another thing, while I got a kick out of his UN speech, IMO Hugo
> > Chavez is no prince, see: embrace of Ahmadinejad.
> >
> >  > JUAN COLE: And remember, the Iranian president is powerless, virtually. The
> > commander-in-chief of the armed forces is Khamenei, the Supreme
> > Juridprudent. Ahmadinejad can consult on the appointment of cabinet
> > ministers and ambassadors, but there are very few orders that he
> > could give of any significance in the Iranian system. He's kind of
> > like our Secretary of the Interior or something. So what he thinks
> > about things isn't that important.
> > Maria
> <<<<<>>>>>
>
> so maybe chavez should be reading machiavelli and gramsci
> rather than chomsky...
>
> as for ahmadinejad, cole's comment suggests that it doesn't matter who
> he reads 'cause he ain't ever gonna be a prince in the machiavellian
> and gramscian sense)...   mh

Westerners -- especially liberals and leftists -- have trouble making
up their mind about whether or not it matters who is the President of
Iran.  If it doesn't, who cares whether the President is Ahmadinejad,
Khatami, Rafsanjani, or anyone else?  Khamenei has been the Leader
since 1989 and before that he was the President from 1981 to 1989!

Iranian reformists have the same trouble: they couldn't unite on
whether to boycott presidential elections or push for their own
candidates (needless to say, they couldn't unite on which candidate to
push either!).

They are both very confused.  :->
-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>