The assessment of Pinochet is one which I share, but I think that the characterisation of his admirers is unfair. The reason some people still like him is because they believe that he averted an even worse tyreanny which Allende was establishing. This is not an accurate assessment of the dangers of Allende in my view but for those who do believe that it makes some sense to sympathise with him.

The last "him" refers to Pinochet not Allende.

Good point - but, two wrongs don't make a right do they!

I would go further. I would say that the Pinochet supporters have, in this day and age, no reason to go on holding their legend-ridden view of Allende the coming Communist mass murderer. The evidence is universally known. They do not want to accept it, that's all. And that means that they insist on "seeing it their way" in order to justify the indubitable torture and murder their hero induged in. (And why did not Steven or anyone mention his little illegal enrichment - a billion dollars or so, so I heard, in very confidential Swiss accounts?) They want to go on supporting murder and torture; so they refuse to accept evidence. Lovely people, I must say.

They want to go on supporting murder and torture; so they refuse to accept evidence. Lovely people, I must say.

Well, I do consider Pinochet one notch up from the run of the mill dictator due to actually holding a fair vote (relatively-- fair enough to lose, that's the thing) and stepping down voluntarily. The USA had a lot to do with that too (especially those pesky neocons). It's something that deserves some kind of credit, even though there are plenty of reasons to blast him.

I've never understood why some of those who seem so quick to blast Pinochet also seem to think that having Saddam in power or some other kind of Pinochet-like character would be better than "chaos" in Baghdad, though, or in some cases (the Trudeaus of Canada) are outright Castro lovers. US affection for Pinochet was an "our bastard" type of realism-- exactly the type of thing that the neocons fight against. But apparently "stability" looks better to many people these days.

John Thacker~ your arguments are terrible and your use of Aunt Sallies is astonishingly foolish. Supergeneralissimo Pinocchio Mychestdripswithmedals only held his referendum when every other military tyranny in the region had gone, and did so under pressure from his accomplices in Washington. The mere fact of holding a referendum suggested that he regarded democracy as an option and that he hoped to continue with his lifelong tyranny - otherwise he would have stepped down. He remained at the head of the armed forces and in the Senate, something that should have called forth the words of Cicero - "O tempora! O mores! What an age we live in! He sits in the Senate; he looks and counts which of us he means to kill; everyone knows; and no-one does anything about it!" For there was no doubt that he had kept his place in order to threaten and order about the democracy he had been forced into accepting. Other tyrants retired to private life or went into exile; he remained in the centre of public life, threatening and blackmailing everyone, until not just decency but even sense would have dictated his retirement.

As for those people you imagine to be supporting Saddam Insane or Infidel Castro while attacking Pinocchio - even supposing that people so stupid and unprincipled exist outside of your fantasy, you will not find them here. This is a mostly conservative blog, and certainly nobody who reads Mr.Pollard for fun is likely to have a very high opinion of Baathist or Communist tyranny - or for that matter Islamic tyranny. Feh. Take your Aunt Sallies elsewhere, sir, they have no purpose here.