Choosy Dictators Choose Obama!

[Tree]

Of interest.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...sident.htm

Not scientific, nonetheless, Obama has massive lead in new poll. Does the world not get it?  Or is their news just spun in centrifuges to deliver a narrow viewpoint?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...57285.html

[admin]

Tree, that's simply a guilt by association debating trick on the same plank as what the "American Thinker" did to Soros.

By the way, while I'm in no form a Chavez fan, reality might be a little more complex than fits into easy schemes:

Why the US demonises Venezuala's democracy

Venezuela is about to hold impeccably free and fair elections. Yet the US treats it as a dictatorship

• Mark Weisbrot
• The Guardian, Wednesday 3 October 2012 17.32 BST

On 30 May, Dan Rather, one of America's best-known journalists, announced that Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez would die "in a couple of months at most". Four months later Chávez is not only alive and campaigning but widely expected to win re-election on Sunday.

Such is the state of misrepresentation of Venezuela – it is probably the most lied-about country in the world – that a journalist can say almost anything about Chávez or his government and it is unlikely to be challenged, so long as it is negative. Even worse, Rather referred to Chávez as "the dictator" – a term that few, if any, political scientists familiar with the country would countenance.

Here is what Jimmy Carter said about Venezuela's "dictatorship" a few weeks ago: "As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world."

Carter won a Nobel prize for his work through the election-monitoring Carter Center, which has observed and certified past Venezuelan elections. But because Washington has sought for more than a decade to delegitimise Venezuela's government, his viewpoint is only rarely reported. His latest comments went unreported in almost all of the US media.

In Venezuela, voters touch a computer screen to cast their vote and then receive a paper receipt, which they verify and deposit in a ballot box. Most of the paper ballots are compared with the electronic tally. This system makes vote-rigging nearly impossible: to steal the vote would require hacking the computers and then stuffing the ballot boxes to match the rigged vote.

Unlike in the US, where in a close vote we really have no idea who won (see Bush v Gore), Venezuelans can be sure that their vote counts. And also unlike the US, where as many as 90 million eligible voters will not vote in November, the government in Venezuela has done everything to increase voter registration (now at a record of about 97%) and participation.

Yet the US foreign policy establishment (which includes most of the American and western media) seethes with contempt for Venezuela's democratic process. In a report timed for the elections, the so-called Committee to Protect Journalists says that the government controls a "media empire", neglecting to inform its readers that Venezuelan state TV has only about 5-8% of the country's audience. Of course, Chávez can interrupt normal programming with his speeches (under a law that pre-dates his administration), and regularly does so. But the opposition still has most of the media, including radio and print media – not to mention most of the wealth and income of the country.

The opposition will probably lose this election not because of the government's advantages of incumbency – which are abused throughout the hemisphere, including the United States, but because the living standards of the majority of Venezuelans have dramatically improved under Chávez. Since 2004, when the government gained control over the oil industry and the economy had recovered from the devastating, extra-legal attempts to overthrow it (including the 2002 US-backed military coup and oil strike of 2002-2003), poverty has been cut in half and extreme poverty by 70%. And this measures only cash income. Millions have access to healthcare for the first time, and college enrolment has doubled, with free tuition for many students. Inequality has also been considerably reduced. By contrast, the two decades that preceded Chávez amount to one of the worst economic failures in Latin America, with real income per person actually falling by 14% between 1980 and 1998.

In Washington, democracy has a simple definition: does a government do what the state department wants it to do? And of course here, the idea of politicians actually delivering on what they promised to voters is also an unfamiliar concept. So it is not just Venezuela that regularly comes under fire from the Washington establishment: all of the left and newly independent governments of South America, including Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia are in the crosshairs (although Brazil is considered too big to get the same treatment except from the right). The state department tries to keep its eyes on the prize: Venezuela is sitting on 500bn barrels of oil, and doesn't respect Washington's foreign policy. That is what makes it public enemy number one, and gets it the worst media coverage.

But Venezuela is part of a "Latin American spring" that has produced the most democratic, progressive, and independent group of governments that the region has ever had. They work together, and Venezuela has solid support among its neighbours. This is the former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, last month: "A victory for Chávez is not just a victory for the people of Venezuela but also a victory for all the people of Latin America … this victory will strike another blow against imperialism."

South America's support is Venezuela's best guarantee against continuing attempts by Washington – which is still spending millions of dollars within the country in addition to unknown covert funds – to undermine, delegitimise, and destabilise democracy in Venezuela.

[Tree]

[/quote]

[quote='admin' pid='11595' dateline='1351085756']

Tree, that's simply a guilt by association debating trick on the same plank as what the "American Thinker" did to Soros.

By the way, while I'm in no form a Chavez fan, reality might be a little more complex than fits into easy schemes:

**********

World views are funny things aren't they?  It is material to see who American way of life enemies prefer as President?  Don't think so.  Guilt by association?  Facts are friendly, these dictators endorse Obama.  Who do you imagine those terrorists that attacked Benghazi and murdered 4 Americans would endorse?  Maybe someone will poll those guys.

STP,  odd that you dug up American Thinker vs. Soros.  At that time, you discredited American Thinker because you view them as right wing, therefore their case was un credible.

According to your logic you should not use Juan Williams, an un abashed lib, to promote your argument last night to cover for Obama's lies regarding Lybia.

And you would not use this Mark Weisbrot fellow, that cites Jimmy Carter (the most overwhelmingly defeated incumbent President in history)  to make a case that Venezuela is somehow demonized by US policy??

Weisbrot may claim to be non-partisan, but that just isn't so.

He is the President of Just Foreign Policy.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/about/mission

• Mark Weisbrot

It is fine to differ politically, it is best to be transparent.  The US is a conservative nation.  No national figure will win US elections if they run as liberal.  Why is it that Obama tries to re-invent himself as a fiscal conservative, a hard work and pick yourself up by the boot strap kinda guy and a tough defender of America's interest over seas during a campaign?  Simple answer is to get elected.  My God, he even sounded Reaganesque at some times.  

[admin]

["STP, odd that you dug up American Thinker vs. Soros. At that time, you discredited American Thinker because you view them as right wing, therefore their case was un credible."]

I have to take issue with that as I don't think that's a fair rendition of what I argued at the time. It wasn't the political orientation of the American Thinker, it was the evidence presented in the article that swayed me. I spend a whole day looking at that, and I think it was particularly weak. With hindsight, I think its even weaker now.

The thesis of the American Thinker was that Soros was financing (or even masterminding, I don't remember) an anti-fracking movement because he had interests in InterOil and Petrobras which would benefit from reduced competition from American shale gas.

At the minimum, I believed that thesis was far-fetched, considering the evidence presented in it, I can't say I was impressed by it, here are my findings:
http://shareholdersunite.com/2010/10/21/soros-fracking/

But since that, we know:
- Soros isn't invested in IOC anymore (at the time, he was already out of Petrobras)
- He has significant shale gas investments in Poland

After that, I find the thesis of that article having even less merit, to be honest.

As a habit, I don't really care all that much what the political orientation of a particular author is. We ALL have political views of some sort. I'll take them in as one, but just one factor. I try to focus mostly at the merits of articles, like I did with that American Thinker piece of Soros.

I'm familiar with Mark Weisbrot, by the way (not personally, but with some of his work).

[ArtM72]

I've come to believe tree Just might be lacking In critical thinking skills. I hope his blindness Does not extend to IOC.

[Tree]

I've come to believe tree Just might be lacking In critical thinking skills. I hope his blindness Does not extend to IOC.

Nice refute Art!   Help me understand then Art.  How is explainable with your obvious critical thinking skills, that while over 200 Americans did nothing except watch real time video of a 7 hr. attack, at State Dept. and White House Situation room,  on about 30 Americans in the Bengazai consulate which killed 4 Americans, the last 2 at the end of the 7 hr. attack and did nothing?  Obama knew within 2 hrs. max after the attack that it was a terrorist attack.  He chose politics over American lives by first doing nothing to protect them and second by lying that the ttack was caused by a video for 2 weeks.   You obviously find this Presidential behavior Art.   How does your criticle thinking excuse this Art?  I guess Ed Schulz didn't tell you this part.

[ArtM72]

There is a lot of group think going on in this nation today that serves as people's reality. I find incredulous the statement "over 200 Americans did nothing except watch real time video of a 7 hr. attack, at State Dept. and White House Situation room, on about 30 Americans in the Bengazai consulate which killed 4 Americans, the last 2 at the end of the 7 hr. attack and did nothing". I've heard of some video from some security cameras removed by the Libyans after the attack and now in US hands that may be useful. Maybe you are referring to some super secret overhead drone that nobody in the State Department or Congress seems to be aware of? I'm sure the likes of Darrel Issa would be all over that one.

Would you care to provide the source of your allegation and its substantiation? I've wondered if you were going to bother to refute the Vaughan Williams article posted a couple days ago. As best I recall you pretty much just rejected the article on the basis that Williams had worked at NPR, as opposed to refuting any of the quotes from named people in the Administration and elsewhere who were in a position to have immediate knowledge of the actual events.

Blind hatred I believe generates this kind of thinking, with emphasis on the word "blind". My bottom line is the President did the right thing in immediately starting the investigation to find out what went wrong, why and announce his determination to hunt down the perpetrators. Given Obama's track record on Al Qaeda, those guys that attacked the consulate best be wearing brown pants.

I'd be interested to see you sources. 200 Americans watching real time video of the attack and doing nothing about it? Defies the imagination of rational people.

[admin]

I was hoping people, despite having different views, could have a civil discussion nevertheless and not get personal, I'm getting disappointed here..

[Tree]

There is a lot of group think going on in this nation today that serves as people's reality. I find incredulous the statement "over 200 Americans did nothing except watch real time video of a 7 hr. attack, at State Dept. and White House Situation room, on about 30 Americans in the Bengazai consulate which killed 4 Americans, the last 2 at the end of the 7 hr. attack and did nothing". I've heard of some video from some security cameras removed by the Libyans after the attack and now in US hands that may be useful. Maybe you are referring to some super secret overhead drone that nobody in the State Department or Congress seems to be aware of? I'm sure the likes of Darrel Issa would be all over that one. Would you care to provide the source of your allegation and its substantiation? I've wondered if you were going to bother to refute the Vaughan Williams article posted a couple days ago. As best I recall you pretty much just rejected the article on the basis that Williams had worked at NPR, as opposed to refuting any of the quotes from named people in the Administration and elsewhere who were in a position to have immediate knowledge of the actual events. Blind hatred I believe generates this kind of thinking, with emphasis on the word "blind". My bottom line is the President did the right thing in immediately starting the investigation to find out what went wrong, why and announce his determination to hunt down the perpetrators. Given Obama's track record on Al Qaeda, those guys that attacked the consulate best be wearing brown pants. I'd be interested to see you sources. 200 Americans watching real time video of the attack and doing nothing about it? Defies the imagination of rational people.

Here's a thought Art, you can either prove me wrong or do some of your stellar DD  and prove me right.   The President knew in real time it was a terrorist attack, knew within 2 hrs. who claimed responsibility, and those investigting have been met by stonewalling and cover-up to this point.  That effort is falling apart as people within the White House cover their rear ends with the release of damning e-mails and the Congressional testimony which contradict Obama's words.  It's funny how you accept your intelligence being insulted by a President you support.  Like I said, if Bush did this, your news sources would be out raged and rightfully you would be too.

[Spartina]

Anybody who doubts that there wasn't a deliberate effort to mislead the amercan public here by the admin weeks after the incident is just not being intellectually honest here. Period.