You can't have a dictatorship without a controlled media.
Everyone knows that.
And as noted in "
Go to Venezuela, you Idiot!" the Media IS the opposition.
Now, take a look at our 'rebellious' media...
"Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
- Irena Briganti, Fox News
"I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."
- Christiane Amanpour, CNN
When it comes to control of the media, Bush is clearly more of a Dictator.
Attempted Coups against Chavez - One in 2002
Attempted Coups against Bush - None
Take a look at Bush's approval ratings, and ask yourself why there hasn't there been an uprising. Obviously, Bush rules the American People with an iron fist. So, once again, Bush is clearly more of a Dictator than Chavez is.
Chavez faces opposition from both within and outside of his country.
Bush and his Party control all three branches of government.
So, once again, who is more of a Dictator?
In 2004, Chavez faced a Referendum.
And here, you can't even suggest the Impeachment of Bush without being labeled a "Traitor" and "Terrorist".
So, if Chavez is a Dictator, what's that make Bush?
A Super-Mega-Ultra Dictator?