Besides the constant chatter about Cuba, the biggest headlines coming out of the OAS heads of state summit this weekend was President Obama’s warm greetings with the great Latin American demagogue, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and his lackey, President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. These two militant socialists have made their political careers out of their ability to blame all that ills their nations and their neighbors on U.S. “imperialism.”

President Obama foolishly thought that in order to achieve better relations with the outside world, the U.S. had to publicly embrace the very people who have made us look horrendous. He thought that being friendly to them would discredit their anti-American rhetoric. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

I am all for diplomacy. War is a failure of diplomacy and should always be used as a last resort. There is absolutely no reason for us to take aggressive actions against any of our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, but that doesn’t mean we need to associate with people who openly ridicule us for their own gain.

President Obama himself has called Chavez a demagogue. Chavez has called our current president an “ignoramus” and our former one a “devil.” Why the sudden camaraderie now? I understand that at summits like these one cannot ignore other heads of state, but it seemed like President Obama was actively seeking Chavez. Chavez was ready to be showered with attention, presenting our dear president with a copy of “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent” a book that lambasts U.S. involvement in the region. It was the ultimate publicity stunt.

Not to be outdone, Ortega used his time on the stage to rant about the evils of the U.S. He called Obama “the president of an empire,” talked about the “terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America,” and discredited the very same summit he was speaking at for not including Cuba.

How did Obama respond? He took notes. As our country was being accused of high crimes and blamed for Latin America’s problems, our president did not find it necessary to respond. If there was a response, it was just an apology for U.S. actions under other presidents and a promise he would be kinder.

Again, I am not against President Obama being diplomatic or even apologizing for some of the mistakes the U.S. has made in the past, but to not stand up and defend his country, the country he was sworn to protect, as it was being ridiculed is utterly disappointing. President Obama might have thought he was discrediting Chavez and his allies. Instead he did the exact opposite. Chavez can now tell his followers he went “face to face with the empire” and got “the emperor” to bow. Good diplomacy has nothing to do with legitimizing demagogues.

Last 5 posts by Abel S. Delgado

• Let’s Support the Cantwell-McCain Bill - January 6th, 2010
• Deeds Gets Dirty, Doesn’t Win Anyway - November 2nd, 2009
• Obama & The Berlin Wall - October 25th, 2009
• The Nobel Prom King - October 11th, 2009
• Bureaucratizing Interrogations a Horrible Idea - August 28th, 2009