Is this the Pinochet who seized power in 1973 from the Marxist government of Salvador Allende & introduced American economic policies (Milton Friedman)? A man who, at the time, was loved by both the American and British Leaders.

And is this the Pinochet who met McCain in 1985? A year that saw a thawing of the cold war, and a bunch of politicians running backwards and forwards around the world speaking to everyone who might have an oar in that particular fight.

A year when a 24 year old Barack Obama was probably a bit too young to be meeting Dictators.

Because - If so, this seems like a pretty weak attack.

Doesn't McCain have Kissinger the War Criminal as his foreign policy advisor? That alone should make people wary about voting for the asshole.

Who says it's an attack?

McCain secretly visited a evil dictator and didn't say jack about the evil dictator's evil. Other people met him, and they publicly called for a return to democracy.

And "loved"? Are you sticking up for Pinochet?

Yeah - That's exactly what I'm doing. Obviously.

Lovely little Pinochet. Beloved leader of Chile. OK - So a couple of people got caught up in the crossfire when he was liberating his country from the Soviet menace, but otherwise I've not a bad word to say about the man. Well, if he were alive that is. Before he was MURDERED BY SOCIALISM.

SittingDownWithDictatorsWithoutPreconditionsFilter: Guess which presidential candidate may have already done it? Shockingly, not Obama.
How is this not an attack?

Seanyboy, forgive me if I'm being stupid, but the context is that one of McCain's major anti-Obama talking points is that Obama won't rule out meeting with the heads of enemy states if he thinks there is a strategic purpose. McCain has been attacking Obama in each debate and in the press for "negotiating with dictators."

or, more accurately, being "willing to negotiate with dictators."

And McCain's wrong to do so. As a potential leader, it'd be wrong to start saying which other leaders you will and will not meet. I don't agree with McCain at all.

But to call hypocrisy using this situation as evidence seems like a weak attack because:
- It happened over 20 years ago.
- I'm not convinced that the American Government considered Pinochet a dictator at the time.

Also,
McCain can turn this round and say -

"Sure. I met Pinochet. But I wasn't president when it happened. And I met a lot of people in those days. Now I can't give you a list of people Obama met back then because he was only 24 but it's highly unlikely he'd have been getting any foreign affairs experience. (laugh). We can however look at Joe Biden and say who he has met...

For example,

Joe Biden did meet King Hussein of Jordan
Joe Biden did meet Col. Qaddafi of Libya
Joe Biden did meet Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev
Joe Biden did meet Serbian Leader Slobodan Milosevic

to name a few.

These are leaders he's admitted to meeting himself, that he's proud of meeting, but we're not going to be making a deal out of it. So for the Obama campaign to turn around and say we had meetings with a South American Leader who overthrew a Marxist government some 22 years ago seems a bit rich."

etc, etc.

Plus - You're one of the smartest people I know, so I shall forgive you NOTHING. :)

I don't see that as such a detriment. Everyone knows Biden is a foreign policy expert who has met and talked with hundreds of heads of state, and his record is well known and is on the record. I don't think most Obama supporters think it's a bad thing to have conversations at all levels with leaders of many kinds of states, so the proposed McCain counterattack would carry no sting. The point is that noting that sometimes those conversations are necessary defuses McCain's own talking point.

As to whether Pinochet's relations with the US were warm at the time or not, I can only refer you to the not bad writeup at the Huffington Post. Publicly, the United States was vocally in support of the Chilean democratic activists and against its terroristic threats. Privately, McCain was on a mission to apparently help shore up opposition to Communism. If relations were warm at the time, the trip would never have been kept secret. It is known now only because of document declassification.

Hmmm - You're probably right about the Biden thing. This is why I'm not a spin doctor.

I did mean warm as in secretly warm. I remember that (with the exception of Thatcher) there was a lot of public criticism of Pinochet. But I do think that the American Government secretly liked and supported him.

Oh, I think you're right, it was part of their policy of containment.

But I do think that the American Government secretly liked and supported him.
This applies so often, it's the American Way.
It's long been American policy.

It's amazing what two generations of bushes can do to a nation.
Its time to beat the bushes for a bunny round up.
i don't think many will mind a brush fire to clear out the forest since everything else has started sliding down the hill to suck.
Get the plumbers to open the water gate!

Government secretly liked and supported him.

The CIA not-so-secretly aided and abetted the coup that put him in power. Including airstrikes, at appropriate times. I knew someone who was there, and barely got missed by an airstrike. US jets.

I think that the point of the Huffington Post was merely to point out (as if it needed to be) the lameness of the Republican's position that it's dangerous, foolish, etc etc to talk to people.

So a couple of people got caught up in the crossfire when he was liberating his country from the Soviet menace, but otherwise I've not a bad word to say about the man.

You've not a bad word to say about the man? Are you being ironic? Or is this really your idea of a couple of people getting caught in the crossfire:

He was arrested at 2.30 pm on 25 March 1982. No arrest-warrant was shown. He was blindfolded and forced into a car, in which he was driven for about half an hour. When they reached their destination he was led down a concrete spiral staircase to a large room where he was told to undress and then was given overalls and zapatillas (lightweight footwear). His blindfold was exchanged for a mask. He was then taken to his cell, which measured about l.5m by 2m and a little over 2m high. The cell contained a concrete bunk plus mattress, pillow and a blanket.

His first interrogation took place two days after arrest. It was conducted in another room in the presence of about five other people. He was asked about his connections with political parties. He was beaten: struck on the head, punched on the right side of his chest and beaten with a rubber truncheon on the shoulders. Afterwards he was stretched out on a bed, to which his wrists were tied with cloth, this causing sharp, painful extension of the elbows. A cloth strap was tied round his thighs; his ankles were tied down and his head was put in a special device which prevented him from raising it. He was gagged with a towel. A metal object was fastened to the inner side of his right foot. Two electrodes (in addition to the one fastened to his foot) were then used to administer electric shocks to the lobe of his right ear, to his chest, abdomen, testicles, penis area, anus, legs and the soles of his feet. He was electrically tortured three times that day. He thought the electrodes used were electric wires. While he was being electrically tortured he could hear a generator, so he believed it was possible to vary the current. He did not lose consciousness during the electric torture, nor did he have generalized convulsions.

Two days later he was again interrogated and electrically tortured while naked.

Other types of torture inflicted on him included burning with a cigarette lighter in the kidney region and on the palms of both hands. The burns were superficial and left no marks.

Crossfire, indeed.

Anyway, as Miko pointed out -- and I had thought that his was obvious, but evidently I was actually being subtle (something I'm rarely accused of) -- that the point is that A) McCain is accusing Obama of wanting to meet with dictators without precondition when B) he himself evidently did precisely that.

Is this list the not-so-secret secret thread now?
Should i update my dictator trading cards?

i thought seanyboy was joking wth straight up comedy.

I think seanyboy is being ironic.

Whew. I haven't had my morning cup of tea, but I do have a pinched nerve in my neck, so that may explain my irony meter being completely jiggered.

I'm like rain on your wedding day.

It's raining here, and i have had to flip my irony sensor on and off to figure out it someone's serious a lot lately. It's jarring.

This comment is entirely serious.

They trained dogs to rape women prisoners, you know

Flipping through this set from 1989, i wish they had done more and kept going. They didn't do nearly as much as they could, but it felt like a foothold of progress at the time.

and job creation!

I'm like rain on your wedding day.

Which isn't ironic. Unless you're being oh fuck it.