A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Huh?

Several Dems explicitly stated that they were going to come in and give hours-long speeches so that the vote on Rice couldn't happen until after the inaugeration - just for the symbolic hit. I think he was saying that that, of itself, was sort of low-rent. It wasn't as bad as, say, the Holocaust, but it does suggest that the new power axis of Boxer-Kerry-Dean is pushing hard for a new Ministry of Silly Walks.

what's worse is that i would actually like to see some more Dems get elected to senate in '06, and I'd like an actually electable Dem candidate in '08- and it ain't going to happen.

GGG- do YOU want bet about board sponsorship for Dec '08?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's worse is that i would actually like to see some more Dems get elected to senate in '06, and I'd like an actually electable Dem candidate in '08- and it ain't going to happen.

GGG- do YOU want bet about board sponsorship for Dec '08?

Oh and as to your party icons:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42464

Jimmy Carter linked to oil-for-food scam
Ex-president worked with key figure
in scandal combating Iraqi sanctions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Former President Jimmy Carter has been linked with a key figure in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal by the group leading the nationwide effort to evict the United Nations from American soil and halt U.S. funding of the U.N.

Move America Forward today will call upon Carter to provide a full accounting of his meetings and conversations with Samir Vincent, who yesterday pleaded guilty to participating in numerous illegal activities as part of the U.N. scandal.

"President Carter needs to tell the American people exactly what relationships he had with the individuals involved in the oil-for-food scandal," said Melanie Morgan, co-chairman of Move America Forward, which is running television ads attacking the U.N. on national cable news networks, conducting an online petition drive and soliciting contributions to spread the message of the TV spots.


Samir Vincent admitted on Tuesday to receiving allocations for more than 9 million barrels of oil between 1996 and 2003 in return for serving as an agent of Saddam Hussein's regime. Vincent worked at Hussein's direction, lobbying U.S. and U.N. officials to end sanctions and to instead implement the oil-for-food scam.

"Did President Carter know he was dealing with an agent of Saddam Hussein or was he just terribly gullible?" asked Morgan. "And if he truly was naïve as to Samir Vincent's true agenda, then now is the time for him to come forward and repudiate Mr. Vincent and his actions."

According to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, "Vincent lobbied former officials of the United States government, who maintained close contacts to high-ranking members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations."

Ashcroft asserted that Vincent reported the results of his efforts with these former U.S. officials to the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

Based upon an investigation by Move America Forward, it appears President Carter and his associates are among the former officials with whom Vincent collaborated.

It might actually be that it was an embarassment for Michael Moore to sit next To Mr. Carter at the convention.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, two countries where we invaded and removed undemocratic governments, and have held or are about to hold elections. An election does not a functioning democracy make, especially when the government cannot govern much of the country, so suffice it to say that the jury is still out on Afghanistan and Iraq, and that in any event there are substantial practical limitations on our ability to invade other countries in the next four years to impose freedom.

You've moved the bar. The question was: "What have we done to promote democracy?" _not_ "Have we succeeded yet in transforming any country from an authoritarian state to a functioning, Western-style democracy in the past three years?"

The answer to the second question is negative, of course, but its not a realistic question. Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly positive answers to the first question: Two authoriarian dictatorships -- one modern & secular, and one theocratic & non-modern -- have been overturned. Structures are in place in both countries to ultimately lead to a modified parliamentary system. Afgahnistan is further along.

As to Palestine -- several things come to mind (in terms of promoting democracy). You're right that Arafat's death was pre-condition for progress, but that's because he simply refused to change, and it doesn't mean we didn't try to promote democracy.

One key piece was freezing out Arafat completely -- making it clear that we would _never_ deal with the lying, corrupt, terrorist authoritarian. That helped force change by (1) changing the dynamics -- the Palestinian leadership couldn't spin their wheels and b.s. anymore, or use us against Israel -- and (2) by providing support for the anti-corruption crusaders in the PA. We also strongly supported Queria (SP?) and Abbas -- privately even more than publicly. The CIA served and serves an important role as a liason between the Israelis and the Palestinian security services -- helping them work together when the Palestinians wish to do so. We've encouraged Egypt to take an active role in maintaining peace and security in the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal. They've beefed up border security _and_ have agreed to help train new PA security forces in Gaza after the withdrawal (counter-weight to Hamas).

You might ask what the military and intelligence efforts have to do with promoting democracy. In my view they are key to setting the conditions to move towards a meaningful democracy and a functioning Palestinian state.

As to what we do generally to promote democracy -- I'm not being a wiseacre when I say "google it." Even with the unfortunate cutbacks in our U.S.-sponsored foreign radio programming, we have several government agencies dedicated to providing aid and spreading democratic ideals throughout the world. (I don't know if the budgets add up to much more than a couple of billion dollars, but their work is meaningful.)

To say "we've done it for fifty years," or "we're not doing it for altruistic reasons" is rather beside the point.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You've moved the bar. The question was: "What have we done to promote democracy?" _not_ "Have we succeeded yet in transforming any country from an authoritarian state to a functioning, Western-style democracy in the past three years?"

The answer to the second question is negative, of course, but its not a realistic question. Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly positive answers to the first question: Two authoriarian dictatorships -- one modern & secular, and one theocratic & non-modern -- have been overturned. Structures are in place in both countries to ultimately lead to a modified parliamentary system. Afgahnistan is further along.

As to Palestine -- several things come to mind (in terms of promoting democracy). You're right that Arafat's death was pre-condition for progress, but that's because he simply refused to change, and it doesn't mean we didn't try to promote democracy.

One key piece was freezing out Arafat completely -- making it clear that we would _never_ deal with the lying, corrupt, terrorist authoritarian. That helped force change by (1) changing the dynamics -- the Palestinian leadership couldn't spin their wheels and b.s. anymore, or use us against Israel -- and (2) by providing support for the anti-corruption crusaders in the PA. We also strongly supported Queria (SP?) and Abbas -- privately even more than publicly. The CIA served and serves an important role as a liason between the Israelis and the Palestinian security services -- helping them work together when the Palestinians wish to do so. We've encouraged Egypt to take an active role in maintaining peace and security in the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal. They've beefed up border security _and_ have agreed to help train new PA security forces in Gaza after the withdrawal (counter-weight to Hamas).

You might ask what the military and intelligence efforts have to do with promoting democracy. In my view they are key to setting the conditions to move towards a meaningful democracy and a functioning Palestinian state.

As to what we do generally to promote democracy -- I'm not being a wiseacre when I say "google it." Even with the unfortunate cutbacks in our U.S.-sponsored foreign radio programming, we have several government agencies dedicated to providing aid and spreading democratic ideals throughout the world. (I don't know if the budgets add up to much more than a couple of billion dollars, but their work is meaningful.)

To say "we've done it for fifty years," or "we're not doing it for altruistic reasons" is rather beside the point.

S_A_M

This is your (meaning you SAM) POTY.

[sgtclub]

First the Brits, now the Danish: http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...ABUSE-DC.html.

Funny, how is this one Rummy's fault?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is your (meaning you SAM) POTY.

Thanks, but don't get too choked up.

I'm still not convinced that we should have invaded Iraq (especially in the absence of WMD). I'm too risk-averse -- and that was/is a truly enormous risk with the prospect of a corresponding reward hazy and long-term at best. (I may also have trouble with "the vision thing.")

[sgtclub]

• An overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to say they intend to vote on Jan. 30 even as insurgents press attacks aimed at rendering the elections a failure, according to a new public opinion survey.
  
  The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months.
  
  The 64 percent who said they were "very likely" to vote represented a dip of about 7 percentage points from a November survey, while those "somewhat likely" to vote increased 5 points.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Thanks, but don't get too choked up.

I'm still not convinced that we should have invaded Iraq (especially in the absence of WMD). I'm too risk-averse -- and that was/is a truly enormous risk with the prospect of a corresponding reward hazy and long-term at best. (I may also have trouble with "the vision thing.")

That's a rational position.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
First the Brits, now the Danish: http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...ABUSE-DC.html.

Funny, how is this one Rummy's fault?

Club, we can see you're not a Fashion Board guy. Rummy invented it, of course it's his work.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh and as to your party icons:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42464

Oh, you mean this guy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You've moved the bar. The question was: "What have we done to promote democracy?" _not_ "Have we succeeded yet in transforming any country from an authoritarian state to a functioning, Western-style democracy in the past three years?"

I don't think that's fair at all. Look at my post, and you'll see that in places like Ukraine and Palestine, my question was, what have we done? Not, what was the result, but what have we done?

The answer to the second question is negative, of course, but its not a realistic question. Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly positive answers to the first question: Two authoriarian dictatorships -- one modern & secular, and one theocratic & non-modern -- have been overturned. Structures are in place in both countries to ultimately lead to a modified parliamentary system. Afgahnistan is further along.

If you look back at my post, you'll see I acknowledged what's happened in both countries. Although perhaps I'm less optimistic than you are about what's going to happen. Because neither country's government has authority throughout its territory.

Clearly, Iraq and Afghanistan are different cases, because installing a new government is easier if you actually go in militarily to remove the prior government.

As to Palestine -- several things come to mind (in terms of promoting democracy). You're right that Arafat's death was pre-condition for progress, but that's because he simply refused to change, and it doesn't mean we didn't try to promote democracy.

One key piece was freezing out Arafat completely -- making it clear that we would _never_ deal with the lying, corrupt, terrorist authoritarian. That helped force change by (1) changing the dynamics -- the Palestinian leadership couldn't spin their wheels and b.s. anymore, or use us against Israel -- and (2) by providing support for the anti-corruption crusaders in the PA. We also strongly supported Queria (SP?) and Abbas -- privately even more than publicly. The CIA served and serves an important role as a liason between the Israelis and the Palestinian security services -- helping them work together when the Palestinians wish to do so. We've encouraged Egypt to take an active role in maintaining peace and security in the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal. They've beefed up border security _and_ have agreed to help train new PA security forces in Gaza after the withdrawal (counter-weight to Hamas).

You might ask what the military and intelligence efforts have to do with promoting democracy. In my view they are key to setting the conditions to move towards a meaningful democracy and a functioning Palestinian state.

It's not clear to me that freezing out Arafat forced any change, since the election happened only when he died. Not that I'm saying there weren't good reasons to freeze him out. The other things you mention are nice, but isn't there any part of our foreign policy that isn't about setting conditions for people around the world to move towards a meaningful democracy? 'Cause free trade and security both do that.

As to what we do generally to promote democracy -- I'm not being a wiseacre when I say "google it." Even with the unfortunate cutbacks in our U.S.-sponsored foreign radio programming, we have several government agencies dedicated to providing aid and spreading democratic ideals throughout the world. (I don't know if the budgets add up to much more than a couple of billion dollars, but their work is meaningful.)

To say "we've done it for fifty years," or "we're not doing it for altruistic reasons" is rather beside the point.

If you're saying that we're going to keep doing all of the things we've been doing for fifty years, that's fine and good. I just figured that for a subject that's the centerpiece of the Bush inaugural, there be something else there, but I guess not.

I wasn't trying to suggest that we do nothing to promote democracy. Duh. It's just that we often put those principles on the back shelf while something else is on the front burner, and so I wanted to know what Bush was going to different. You seem to be saying, not much. Maybe he just didn't have any other big ideas to talk about.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• An overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to say they intend to vote on Jan. 30 even as insurgents press attacks aimed at rendering the elections a failure, according to a new public opinion survey.
  
  The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months.
  
  The 64 percent who said they were "very likely" to vote represented a dip of about 7 percentage points from a November survey, while those "somewhat likely" to vote increased 5 points.

What the hell is the "International Republican Institute?" A place to keep GOP pollsters off the streets between elections?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What the hell is the "International Republican Institute?" A place to keep GOP pollsters off the streets between elections?

I don't know, but it was good enough for WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan20.html

[sgtclub]

I haven't seen it yet, but my girl Peggy didn't like it:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110006184

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know, but it was good enough for WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan20.html

I was just making a joke, but this post has a lot more from and about that poll.