Democratic Convention

[MrFun]

The election of 2000 seemed to have proven that in fact, every single vote does matter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I might email him, but id rather see a public statement, not a tailored reply. I dont think the WaPo will be satisfied with a private email either.

Again Im not the only one with this concern. If Kerry cant get the support of the Washington Post editorial page against George Bush, Kerry has major problems. And oh yes, there have been hints my state (VA) may be in play, though it hasnt been decades.

This election is such that few if any will care which way WaPo comes out. And if Virginia is in play, that is already bad news for Bush, period.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrFun
The election of 2000 seemed to have proven that in fact, every single vote does matter.

In a state like Arizona, Florida, or Michigan, yes. Not in NY, California, Texas or Mississippi.

[Ramo]

lotm:

I don't know how you can disagree with my characterization of Allawi, Hersh has documented it:

“If you’re asking me if Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London, the answer is yes, he does,” Vincent Cannistraro, the former C.I.A. officer, said. “He was a paid Mukhabarat agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff.” A cabinet-level Middle East diplomat, who was rankled by the U.S. indifference to Allawi’s personal history, told me early this month that Allawi was involved with a Mukhabarat “hit team” that sought out and killed Baath Party dissenters throughout Europe. (Allawi’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) At some point, for reasons that are not clear, Allawi fell from favor, and the Baathists organized a series of attempts on his life. The third attempt, by an axe-wielding assassin who broke into his home near London in 1978, resulted in a year-long hospital stay.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040628fa_fact

Even if you believe that this is only his past, Allawi is the guy the realists love (which is why he was the CIA's man), he has built a party from Ba'athists in the army, has created connections with other Ba'athist parties, has had his detainees abused, has personally murdered several, has secured emergency powers for himself, and just yesterday has postponed the National Congress. Do you honestly believe that this is the best guy for democracy in Iraq?

And Negroponte is Powell's man. Are you arguing that Powell has become a neo-con? Or that Negroponte has switched allegiences?

The administration's neo-cons (who, I'm far from convinced care one whit about democracy) have fallen from grace, really ever since Chalabi went down.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
lotm:

I don't know how you can disagree with my characterization of Allawi, Hersh has documented it:

“If you’re asking me if Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London, the answer is yes, he does,” Vincent Cannistraro, the former C.I.A. officer, said. “He was a paid Mukhabarat agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff.” A cabinet-level Middle East diplomat, who was rankled by the U.S. indifference to Allawi’s personal history, told me early this month that Allawi was involved with a Mukhabarat “hit team” that sought out and killed Baath Party dissenters throughout Europe. (Allawi’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) At some point, for reasons that are not clear, Allawi fell from favor, and the Baathists organized a series of attempts on his life. The third attempt, by an axe-wielding assassin who broke into his home near London in 1978, resulted in a year-long hospital stay.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040628fa_fact

Even if you believe that this is only his past, Allawi is the guy the realists love (which is why he was the CIA's man), he has built a party from Ba'athists in the army, has created connections with other Ba'athist parties, has had his detainees abused, has personally murdered several, has secured emergency powers for himself, and just yesterday has postponed the National Congress. Do you honestly believe that this is the best guy for democracy in Iraq?

And Negroponte is Powell's man. Are you arguing that Powell has become a neo-con? Or that Negroponte has switched allegiences?

The administration's neo-cons (who, I'm far from convinced care one whit about democracy) have fallen from grace, really ever since Chalabi went down.

i have my own problems with Hersh, as you might imagine, and with Cannistraro, both of whom have agendas.

The emergency legislation is quite moderate, and hasnt been implemented a month into the new govt.

Ive seen the murder charge, and it sounds very much like an urban legend to me.

And the conference was postponed at the REQUEST of the UNITED NATIONS, to enable MORE to participate.

Geez, Ramo, claiming Allawi is antidemocratic based on that last - youre getting to the Karl Rove level, ya know?

[lord of the mark]

as for powell and the CIA taking over from the necons, yes i have concerns. Again thats why im looking for an alternative. But Bush is commited enough rhetorically to demo promotion that missing it will be a big loss to his prestige. And that applies to Powell too, at some level. Thats why I want to see at least a rhetorical commitment from Kerry.

[lord of the mark]

the postponed conference in Iraq

USA Today:

"A critical conference on Iraq's path toward democracy was postponed for two weeks amid political squabbling and concerns that participation was too limited.


The conference was delayed at the request of the United Nations, which is monitoring the plan to create a democracy in Iraq. Elections are scheduled for January.


Iraq's interim government has been organizing the conference against a backdrop of violence. A car bombing killed 70 people Wednesday. Militants have launched a wave of assassinations and kidnappings in an effort to destabilize the new government.


On Thursday, Marines and insurgents clashed in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. Militants holding seven foreign truck drivers threatened to behead one of them in 24 hours if the company that employed them does not leave Iraq and other demands are not met.


Officials said security concerns were not a factor in the decision to postpone the meeting. Conference chief Fouad Masoum said the United Nations needed more time to encourage wider participation and attempt to get bickering parties to attend. The conference had been scheduled to start Saturday.


The conference was to be a gathering of 1,000 people, including delegates from Iraq's 18 provinces and tribal, religious and political leaders. The purpose is to select a 100-person national assembly, which will have some veto authority, approve the national budget and appoint replacements to the Cabinet.


But smaller parties complained about the selection process for the three-day meeting, saying it gave preference to large, established parties. To protest, some groups refused to participate.

Many of the larger parties were part of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council. Critics say those parties are dominated by exiles who have spent years outside the country and have lost touch.

"That's not fair to let the 10% dominate the whole process," said Sadoun al-Dulame of the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies. "They need to listen to the majority."

Jamal Benomar, a U.N. official, said the additional time would allow conference organizers to encourage the balking parties to participate. "The aim of this conference is to close ranks under the only tent that could contain all the Iraqis," he said."

[Ramo]

The emergency legislation is quite moderate, and hasnt been implemented a month into the new govt.

Nonetheless, it exists, and can be abused.

Ive seen the murder charge, and it sounds very much like an urban legend to me.

In what way?

And the conference was postponed at the REQUEST of the UNITED NATIONS, to enable MORE to participate.

Geez, Ramo, claiming Allawi is antidemocratic based on that last - youre getting to the Karl Rove level, ya know?

It was about trying to bring recalcitrant political forces into accepting a selection process that, as your article pointed out, heavily favored exiles. The idea is that the other parties can't complain as easily about the process and the Congress if they don't boycott it. It's not a grand democratic gesture; it's a cynical attempt at giving the gov't legitimacy, and I'm not convinced it's not in part a postponement of a diffusion of power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

The emergency legislation is quite moderate, and hasnt been implemented a month into the new govt.

Nonetheless, it exists, and can be abused.

LOTM - yes it exists, in the circumstances Iraq faces thats a good thing, and it will be difficult to abuse, since the emergency automatically expires after 60 days, and needs approval of the Pres and both VPs to be extended. In any case i doubt any other Iraqi PM would have requested anything less, so its not evidence of Allawis dictatorial tendencies.

Ive seen the murder charge, and it sounds very much like an urban legend to me.

In what way?


A rumour spreading around, laden with symbolism redolant to the local Iraqis.

And the conference was postponed at the REQUEST of the UNITED NATIONS, to enable MORE to participate.

Geez, Ramo, claiming Allawi is antidemocratic based on that last - youre getting to the Karl Rove level, ya know?

It was about trying to bring recalcitrant political forces into accepting a selection process that, as your article pointed out, heavily favored exiles. The idea is that the other parties can't complain as easily about the process and the Congress if they don't boycott it. It's not a grand democratic gesture; it's a cynical attempt at giving the gov't legitimacy, and I'm not convinced it's not in part a postponement of a diffusion of power.

So it would have been MORE democratic to go ahead and hold it with the other parties excluded??? Look, its an imperfect process - as was the loya jirga in afghanistan, and thats why its only to choose an interim consultative body, till real elections can be held. But the act of postponement, at UN suggestion, is again NOT an indication of dictatorial tendencies.

[lord of the mark]

the NYT on the Iraqi conference

"The biggest problem so far, organizers say, is that among the groups that want to take part, there has been an almost unmanageable number of candidates. In Kut, a Shiite city south of Baghdad, 1,248 people competed for 22 seats. In Najaf, a city considered sacred by Shiites because of its shrines, there were 920 candidates for 20 seats, prompting complaints from Mr. Sadr's group and other leaders that the process was not inclusive or democratic enough."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I very much need to know which one is the REAL kerry before I vote.

Who are your alternatives to Kerry?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Who are your alternatives to Kerry?

well i could cast a blank ballot, or write in a name, but practically speaking the alternative is Bush. I realize that for you that isnt an alternative - you need not review evidence of Bushes ineffectiveness that has already been discussed upthread.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Is it unanimous that everyone hates the alternatives?

[lord of the mark]

Chris Hitchens on firehouses.

Slate:

Firehouse Rot
John Kerry's cheapest shot.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Friday, July 30, 2004, at 10:15 AM PT


Allowance made for choreography, stagecraft, and all the rest of it, there need be no doubt that the Democrats in Boston sincerely wish to "project" the idea of compassion for the underdog, inclusiveness in general, and perhaps above all a degree of care and measure in foreign policy. The AIDS victim in South Africa, or the Bangladeshi woman hoping for a new well: These are sufferers and strugglers who would get genuine applause whether it was Barack Obama mentioning them or not. Of course we understand that our future is bound up with theirs.

But in the last few weeks I have been registering one of the sourest and nastiest and cheapest notes to have been struck for some time. In a recent article about anti-Bush volunteers going door-to-door in Pennsylvania, often made up of campaigners from the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU—one of the country's largest labor unions—the New York Times cited a leaflet they were distributing, which said that the president was spending money in Iraq that could be better used at home. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, recently made the same point, proclaiming repeatedly that the Bay Area was being starved of funds that were being showered on Iraqis. (He obviously doesn't remember the line of his city's most famous columnist, the late Herb Caen, who referred to San Francisco as "Baghdad by the Bay.") These are only two public instances of what's become quite a general whispering campaign. And then on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America." Talk about a false alternative. To borrow the current sappy language of "making us safer": Who would feel more secure if they knew that we weren't spending any tax dollars on Iraqi firehouses?

There is something absolutely charmless and self-regarding about this pitch, and I wish I could hear a senior Democrat disowning it. It is no better, in point of its domestic tone and appeal, than the rumor of the welfare mother stopping her Cadillac to get vodka on food stamps. In point of its international implications, it also suggests the most vulgar form of isolationism, not to say insularity.

And there's something more. It reveals a real element of bad faith on the part of many liberals and leftists. Think of the programs that many of them regard as wasteful and extravagant: the missile-defense system, for example (less than useless in the battle against terrorism) or the so-called "war on drugs" (ditto). But the mention of either of these would involve an argument over principle, and the risk of controversy. So, why not just say that the Republicans are squandering "our" money on a bunch of foreigners?

The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers. Could anything be more short-sighted than that? Have we not learned that failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery? Would we not prosper ourselves—if the question has to be stated in this way—if the Iraqi economy recuperated to the point where it could become a serious trading partner?

This common-sense or self-interested objection doesn't exhaust the argument. A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.

This would mean that all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show. Surely that can't be right? Whatever you think about the twists and turns of U.S. policy toward Baghdad in the last three decades, there can be no doubt of any kind that we have collectively incurred a huge responsibility there, much of it political but a good deal of it purely humanitarian. To demand that American funds be cut off or diverted, just as the country is fighting to rebuild and struggling toward a form of elections, is unconscionable from any standpoint.

The worst thing about John Kerry's parochial line on the firehouses was the applause it got, with cameras even focusing on firefighter union jackets adorned with Kerry-Edwards buttons. The great thing about firefighters is usually their solidarity: They will send impressive delegations to the funerals of their fellows not just in other cities but in other countries, too. Solidarity and internationalism, indeed, used to be the cement of the democratic Left. So, do we understand the nominee correctly? Is he telling us that Iraqi firefighters are parasites sucking on the American ***, and that they don't deserve the supportive brotherhood that used to be the proudest signature of the labor movement? And why is Kerry so keen on attracting our "allies" to share the burden in Iraq—or to "reduce the cost to American taxpayers," as he inelegantly put it—if not to help put out the fire that might otherwise consume more than a point in the budget?

[GePap]

God, what a dumbass, and yes, I mean Christopher Hitchens. i didn't care for him before the war, i don;t care for him now.

If anyone is trully irrelevant, he is.

And its even worse the fact that he does not even understand the line and what it means.