Sticks And Stones …

(CBS)  CBS News reporter Charles Wolfson is a former Tel Aviv bureau chief for CBS News. He now covers the State Department.

---

Get a grip folks; it's not that big a deal.

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ascends the podium at the U.N. General Assembly and says "the devil came here yesterday," referring to President George W. Bush, who spoke from the same podium just a day earlier. His remarks are greeted with applause by diplomats representing many of the world's nations.

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also used his U.N. appearance to castigate the Bush administration. And ditto for Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and Bolivia's Evo Morales. It's that time of year when world leaders gather at U.N. headquarters to create real havoc with New York City traffic as well as virtual diplomatic and political havoc with the U.N.'s host nation.

Every leader gets his or her fifteen minutes in the spotlight. And most use their time for standard policy statements which concern their countries. But there are always a few leaders who simply feel, either for nationalistic or individual pride, the urge to use their time to provoke, to use the U.N. podium as their personal platform to see and be seen as an actor on the world stage.

Fidel Castro has done it for decades. Muamar Qadafi and Yasir Arafat always got more headlines than most of their colleagues combined. So what's the big deal this year? What is the media getting so excited about? Why does House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., feel compelled to call Chavez "an everyday thug"? And the Secretary of State says Chavez's comment "is not becoming a head of state."

Even Bush critic Charles Rangel, D-NY, took up the cause, declaring: "I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president -- don't come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."

One diplomat in Washington, who didn't want to be identified for obvious reasons, said "it was all so much hot air." Besides, whatever happened to the phrase parents used to teach their kids about being taunted on the school playground: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." When diplomats draft a peace agreement words matter. When political leaders choose to be verbally outrageous words matter only if you choose to let them.

Because of poor health, Castro did not have the pleasure of tweaking the Bush administration this year in person. Maybe Chavez's especially strong words this year reflected his recent meeting with his good friend and ally in Havana. No one knows for sure and it doesn't really matter.

Chavez has proved perfectly capable of jousting with his American adversaries on his own. How far Chavez wants to take this tack has yet to be played out. Venezuela has close economic ties with the U.S. through its oil exports and part ownership of a huge energy-based company, CITGO, in this country. Perhaps the Venezuelan leader wants out of the American market and into the potentially larger Chinese market. Or perhaps it's simply that he enjoys center stage.

An unfortunate byproduct of all the attention on the rhetoric of a few world leaders has been less focus on the very real issues facing the U.N. now. Among them, whether to sanction Iran for its refusal to abide by the Security Council's demands, and whether to insist the U.N. assume control over an international peace-keeping force in Sudan's Darfur region despite Khartoum's objections.

As long as Chavez and Ahmadinejad are holding news conferences, making speeches and granting an unusual number of so-called "exclusive" interviews, we will continue to see and hear their over-heated rhetoric. In the coming weeks and months, we'll find out whether these leaders were here to seek solutions or the limelight.

By Charles Wolfson

[hopeseeker-2009]

Sorry archangel didn't see you there.

I'm not sure but I think the verdict is still out on the whole Black people calling each other the n..... word. And any way what about the N.....r. Do you think that just because the Black man has reclaimed a derogatory word used in terrorist tactics while being enslaved by the American government for over 300 years is a good way to defend the sticks and stones name calling. It is never a good tactic to scream profanity, whatever yourstance. It does not promote discussion which I'm sure a few N.....r's would love to re open in the hopes of freedom and liberty for all. What about the Red man, yellow man, There is a whole can of worms being opened on this one. Touchy touchy.... what do you think???

[hopeseeker-2009]

Speaking of hypocrite, if you saw the meet with the press last week about the torture scandal there was one moment where my jaw dropped in disbelief. Within a matter of seconds Bush went blatantly transparent and no one called him on it. One reporter asked, if reports came in that Osama was in Pakistan would we go in to find him? Bush responded by saying that Pakistan is a sovereign country and we can't just invade without being asked in. (I thought what about Iraq) anyway a couple questions later someone asks if the administration supports the U.N.'s stance in the Darfur crisis and what his stance was. (jaw begins to drop) Well he responds by saying

"What you'll hear is, well, the government of Sudan must invite the United Nations in for us to act,' Bush said. 'Well, there are other alternatives, like passing a U.N. resolution saying we're coming in with a U.N. force in order to save lives." Jennifer Loven Associated Press

I look astonishingly at this Schizophrenic flip flop and wonder, can we or can't we? With or without the UN?
Hmmmmm??? This would definately freighten me if I were say........ anyone outside the United States. Where does this stop? Mexico, Canada, Cuba, or is this world policing only for those millions of miles away.

I truly want to believe that this is about saving innocent lives and upholding the virtues of democracy, but when I see this in a matter of seconds it makes me wonder. Did the script writers just miss that one

[archangelric]

sorry about that, I had no idea this idiot site scanned out certain words. I meant a not-straight man can call another not-straight man a f****t without it being hurtful but a straight man means something hurtful when he does it and this site crossed out the word for not straight; wonder what it would have done if I had used the actual word for f----t

[archangelric]

Guys!

You didn't get the message.

it's not about GW and his idiocy, it's about people coming over here from other countries and rubbing our noses in it; in other words he's our idiot.

Just as a white person does not call a black person a n****r without it being hurtful but another black person can, a *** man can call another *** man a f****t without it being hurtful but a straight man means something hurtful when he does it; so too we can call our president an idiot because he is OUR president; somebody elsedoing it is hurtful.

When we do it we are admitting we are embarassed by him being president, when others do it they are insulting all of us. That is what the story was about.

GW being an idiot is not news.

[se sanders]

The diplomatic catastrophes of this administration have undermined our prestige and our credibility. And this does matter! We cannot hope to win friends and influence world opinion with the "my way or the highway" Bush style. This president looks like a big hypocrite on the world stage and Chavez speaks for zillions. This is not good!

[hopeseeker-2009]

Unfortunately the current administration decided to paint definite lines in this imagined picture of black and white. The world works along many lines of all shades. Although most "free" people stand behind the notion of liberty, I am sure there are many who are just standing by and watching. No one wants to be told to make a choice. They choose voluntarily. When they see who has the best alternatives. This is a big dinner party for the kids and your stepdad says were gonna have pizza and that's it, and if you say no then I'll come into your room and force feed it. If you don't eat it then you can stay in your room grounded for a week. Well the kids at the world party didn't marry this man and I think they would like to cook their own meals, even if there is KFC pumping a fowl smell from miles around threatening the health and future for our children. The hope of all the kids is that this friend's mother finds out that stepdads been cheating, and beating the kids and kicks this guy to the curb. There will definately need to be some force in the world if we choose to work for peace, but there needs to be more concensus or we should prepare for more backlash and distrust from the kids on the block.

[expatdude]

hopeseeker,

The Wizard of Oz had a happy ending. This is more like the Twilight Zone.

[expatdude]

I think it is interesting to know that "many" diplomats greeted his remarks with applause. If Bush insists on setting the standard, "you are either with us or against us", then I would have to admit most of the world is against us.

The sad fact is most of the world is slowly stepping back from the US...we've set ourselves up for a big fall in Afgan, Iraq and our dealings with other Nations. And when we do fall, our "allies", standing on the sidelines, will be there to pick up the pieces and, most probably, set us in a corner to protect us from ourselves and the rest of the world.

This is no longer about the "war on terrorism". It's about how long will it take for the US to realize we've painted ourselves in to a corner, and what the world leaders will have to do to iron out the wrinkles Bush has made in the fabric of diplomacy.

[hopeseeker-2009]

Well said Bob. It feels as though we've all unknowingly entered into "The Wizard of Oz", being told not to look at the man behind the curtains. The whole truth will probably never come out as to all of the connecting dots, but I would like to see the same vigilance that was paid to say...... Martha Stewart for instance, directed to some of these operators. There is definately some fishy, back peddaling, and slight of hand going on. We'll most likely have to wait for fifty years when the next set of documents are released from the CIA archives.

[bob-brown1]

The media including CBS, reported only the theatrical part of Chavez's speech. However, he made subtantial statements supporting his "devil" accusation, which have gone by enlarge unreported. The only place I saw reported was at democracy.org

In particular the response to Bush's assertion that the people of Lebanon got caught in a "cross fire". Chavez pointed out that the people of Lebanon were bombed with misiles of high precision. And of course everybody knows the Bush Admin were rushing those weapons to the Israelis as they were delivering on the Lebanon targets, which included a UN post, a house sheltering refugees, a convoy of people escaping the bombing.