I don't know about
causing earthquakes in Haiti but he had
quite a mouth full for it:
“I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war,” Chavez said. “They are occupying Haiti undercover.”
You're a bit late. Go back to page 4; I already quoted that -- and at greater length than you did:
Reuters said:
"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show. "They are occupying Haiti undercover."
"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"
Chavez promised to send as much gasoline as Haiti needs for electricity generation and transport.
A perennial foe of U.S. "imperialism," Chavez said he did not wish to diminish the humanitarian effort made by the United States and was only questioning the need for so many troops.
Read in context, the point Chavez is making is a criticism of the way the US relief effort was done -- that the US, according to Chavez, sent in more military equipment and armed marines than were needed and fewer doctors, medical supplies, and relief equipment than was needed.
In order to make this point, he used overblown rhetoric of the kind which pundits like Rush Limbaugh uses daily (such as when he said FDR wanted to castrate people) and which many US politicians use regularly (such as the use of the phrase "the nuclear option", to describe a plan to get around the senate rules).
Limbaugh didn't literally mean that there was a plot during FDR's administration to castrate people. The Republicans in 2005 didn't literally mean they intended to explode a nuclear device in Washington DC if they didn't get their way. They simply wanted to make sure their remarks got attention, by using attention-grabbing language.
Same with Chavez here. You can excise out a portion of his remarks to make it sound as if he's claiming the US is invading Haiti in order to seize power, just as you can excise out portions of Limbaugh's daily monologues to make it sound as if he's making all sorts of nutty claims. But while many of Limbaugh's claims and opinions are arguable, and may be wrong, they are not Orly Taitz-level or Alex Jones-level wacky. Similarly, while Chavez's criticism of the way Obama carried out the relief effort is arguable, and may be wrong, it too is not Orly Taitz-level wacky.
Too many people in this country (and, as Chavez illustrates, in other countries as well) have become accustomed to using colorful, hyperbolic language to make their points. Sadly, you'll find it being done by a lot of posters at this forum.
It is, I believe, generally a bad practice, one which makes rational discussion more difficult. It is something which we, as skeptics, should be aware of, should try to avoid in our own speech, and should try to encourage others not to engage in. If you wish to criticize Chavez for engaging in this practice, I'll be happy to join you. But criticize him (and Limbaugh, and others) for the offense they are actually committing: using overblown language. Don't take their words out of context to attempt to criticize them for a completely different offense.
And
there's plenty on it showing he's joined the ranks of the Pat Robertson kook.
No. The 9/11 quote which Sword_of_Truth provided is on a par with some of the conspiracy-related things Pat Robertson has said in his book
The New World Order; this quote, criticizing the way Obama carried out the Haiti relief effort, is not.
(Nor is Chavez's 9/11 quote in the same category of wackiness or outrageousness as Pat Robertson's more extreme statements, such as Robertson's claim that 9/11 was god's vengeance on the US for the actions of feminists and gays, or his claim the Haiti earthquake was god's vengeance on Haiti for making a pact with the devil.)
Paranoid heads of state don't make me any more comfortable than I am with someone who egregiously infringes on freedom of speech through financial, legal and, extra legal means. In this case he happens to be both. Blaming the earthquake on HAARP just raises his kook factor another notch.
Except that Chavez never blamed the earthquake on HAARP. Your claim that he did puts you into the same kook category in which you are trying to place Chavez.
People have said numerous times that there are enough legitimate quotes to criticize Chavez on that there's no need to keep trying to criticize him on made-up things. You would do better to spend time finding and verifying legitimate quotes to share rather than passing on spurious ones.
