"Lame" in that there wasn't significant support within Chile for Allende's ouster? Or "lame" because it wasn't a good thing? Salvador Allende was the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing. His record on land seizure (outright theft in the name of political patronage) was quite clear.

I won't go so far as to say that the US financing and supporting his overthrow was the right policy for the US, though (and I didn't mean to imply that). The tactic the US has taken with Hugo Chavez (a form of containment) has been more ethical and successful, I think. One might say that by taking Allende before his policies truly had a chance to fail on their own is what led to a return of that kind of thinking in Chavez, Correa, and Morales.

And no one can say that the father-knows-best Latin leftists don't kill people in the name of establishing political control. Its a bit of a chicken and egg argument, isn't it?