Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (3708)	4/17/2002 11:41:48 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

'I think Argentina has a more similar economy and faced the type of problems that W seems to wish upon the American public. TP TP, I think you are right. Mephisto Comments on the Chávez Coup from the Press "Mr. Chávez has made himself very unpopular with the Bush administration with his pro-Cuban stance and mouthing of revolutionary slogans - and, most recently, by threatening the independence of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, the third-largest foreign supplier of American oil" "Bush Officials Met With Venezuelans Who Ousted Leader " By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS, The New York Times. See: Message 17337352 …………………………………………………….. ……………………. . " Here's "how the BBC put it: "Far from condemning the ouster of a democratically elected president, U.S. officials blamed the crisis on Mr. Chávez himself," and they were "clearly pleased with the result" - even though the new interim government proceeded to abolish the legislature, the judiciary and the Constitution. They were presumably less pleased when the coup attempt collapsed. The BBC again: "President Chávez's comeback has . . . left Washington looking rather stupid." The national security adviser, Condoleezza RICE, didn't help that impression when, incredibly, she cautioned the restored president to "respect constitutional processes." "But the short-lived coup-installed government included representatives of big business and the wealthy - full stop." PAUL KRUGMAN, "Losing Latin America, The New York Times See: siliconinvestor.com ……………………………………………………….. "The collapse of democracy in Venezuela would have exacerbated the sharp social tensions in a bitterly divided country that is the United States' third-largest source of imported oil. It also would have seriously undermined hemispheric efforts championed by three previous American presidents to strengthen democracy and the rule of law and put an end to military in politics." "Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not seem to understand what was at stake in Venezuela. Deviating sharply from the policies of its predecessors, and confusing the understandable dislike of a particular leader and his policies with the importance of supporting democracy, it publicly countenanced the military action. The administration was visibly out of step with other hemispheric leaders who condemned the military coup." Arturo Valenzuela, " Bush's Betrayal of Democracy " The Washington Post See: Message 17341746 …………………………………………………………………. "Mr Chavez yesterday hinted at the possibility of US involvement in the coup attempt, noting that only days before he was ousted, dozens of Venezuelan military personnel working in the country's Washington, Bogota and Brasilia embassies returned to Caracas with no explanation. The implication was that these were military staff sympathetic to the opposition whom he had sent abroad when he became president in 1999. Mr Chavez had earlier said he would investigate the presence of what he said was an American plane on the island prison where he was detained by the Venezuelan military ." Julian Borger in Washington and Alex Bellos, South America correspondent, " US 'gave the nod' to Venezuelan coup, The Guardian See:http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=17341752

To: TigerPaw who wrote (3708)	4/17/2002 11:48:26 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Consistency needed in global affairs seattlepi.nwsource.com Wednesday, April 17, 2002 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD The startling political events in Venezuela last week embody a lesson for not just that country's deposed but rapidly reinstated president, the flamboyant leftist Hugo Chavez. There's a message here for the Bush administration as well: It doesn't do to pick and choose when it comes to defending the rule of law. Otherwise, it leads our democratic allies to suspect -- as they understandably do in the Chavez case -- that the United States is selective in its support for democratic institutions. It was Venezuela's Latin American neighbors, not the United States, who stood up for the principles of democracy when Chavez, the country's duly elected president, was deposed and detained in a military coup. The Organization of American States protested that it was an illegal transfer of power, as indeed it was. But the United States, erstwhile champion of the democratic electoral process, expressed no such regrets on this occasion. Instead, the administration implied that Chavez had either brought his downfall on himself or had simply resigned. "The U.S. is in a very sticky situation. They are going to have to justify their actions. A nation that talks so much about democracy cannot get away with breezily dismissing these kinds of violations," said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Western Hemispheric Affairs. To be sure, Chavez, a populist demagogue, is hardly a paragon of virtue. A former paratrooper who spent two years in jail for attempting his own coup in 1992, he has cozied up to Libya, Iraq and Cuba. The Bush administration's tolerance for Chavez's would-be successor, rightist businessman Pedro Carmona Estanga, may have cooled when he promptly dismantled the National Assembly and fired the ministers of the Supreme Court. The Venezuelans who took to the streets to demand reinstatement of their president were in any case unmistakably cool to the idea of usurper Carmona. And within 48 hours, they had their president back, for good or ill. We share the Bush administration's hope that Chavez has learned that he needs to reach out to his political opposition to improve conditions in his country. The administration's keen interest in Venezuelan domestic tranquility doubtless stems from the fact that the country is the third-largest source of imported U.S. oil; Venezuela produces 7 percent of it. Even in cases where our self-interest may be jeopardized, however, it behooves the administration to apply democratic principles to all democratically elected heads of state, wherever they may be. "I have been and am a critic of many of the characteristics of the government of Hugo Chavez," said President Alejandro Toledo of Peru. But, he added, "We are not defending the democratic characteristics of a particular government, we are defending the principle of the rule of law." President Bush couldn't have said it better himself. Pity he didn't. seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (3708)	4/18/2002 2:18:26 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Democrats take gloves off to throw jabs at Bush Jules Witcover The Baltimore Sun Originally published Apr 17, 2002 ORLANDO, Fla. -- Al Gore and the other potential Democratic presidential candidates for 2004 who peddled their wares at the Florida party's convention here last weekend demonstrated unity on one point: While they support President Bush on the war on terrorism, they are not going to be inhibited in criticizing him on other matters, domestic or foreign. The former vice president set down the marker in a particularly aggressive and vigorous defense of the right of Democrats to go after Mr. Bush on issues other than the war in which they disagree with him. His charge that the Republicans "are wrong to vilify honorable men and women who oppose their right-wing domestic agenda and blatantly dishonest budget" served notice that Mr. Bush will get no free ride because of the war. The other Democrats here quickly joined in. Their assault came against a background of continuing resentment among Florida Democrats over what they consider the stolen presidential election in 2000. It colored much of the rhetoric, joking and serious, heard over the weekend. Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe kicked off the argument that the war on terrorism could not justifiably curb partisan politics in a congressional election year, tying it in with the Florida fiasco. He referred to the Florida secretary of state, whose maneuverings led to Mr. Bush's winning the state, and her Republican candidacy for Congress when he asked, "Does anyone really believe that electing Katherine Harris to Congress is going to help root terrorists out of their caves in Tora Bora?" Another Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, wisecracked that if "Katherine Harris ever leaves politics, she will make one hell of a fine Arthur Andersen auditor." But such gibes did not disguise the determination of Mr. Gore, Mr. Kerry and the other Democratic speakers from the Senate -- Joe Lieberman and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina -- not to let the war on terrorism silence them on their differences with Mr. Bush on other issues. They did not limit themselves, either, to the customary Democratic attacks on the Bush tax cuts, budget deficits and other familiar gripes. On the Middle East crisis, Mr. Kerry castigated the president for declining for 14 months to take on "the task of making peace" in the region before finally dispatching Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region. Mr. Lieberman, one of the Senate's staunchest defenders of Israel, said the Bush administration was wrong to pressure Israel to desist in fighting terror in the disputed Palestinian territories while itself legitimately fighting it in Afghanistan. The most forceful words against Mr. Bush, however, came from Mr. Gore. His gloves-off style and pointed reminders of the economic well-being of the Clinton-Gore years elicited repeated comments from delegates that he would be president today if he had showed the same fire in 2000. At one point, he drew a standing ovation in observing: "We put America's financial house back in order. I don't care what anybody says, I think Bill Clinton and I did a damn good job." Mr. Gore has been widely criticized within the party as having thrown away the 2000 election by being too cautious and poll-driven. In the speech here, however, he bucked a recent Gallup Poll that found 82 percent of Democrats surveyed saying he should not criticize Mr. Bush. That relative abandon, sources close to him say, reflects a new determination by Mr. Gore, as he explores the possibility of running again, to be more outspokenly assertive than he was in 2000 as a vice president. Taking on a wartime president riding high in the polls is a political risk. But Mr. Gore and the other White House prospects, looking down the road, clearly are willing to take it as a means of rallying party support for what now at least seems a long-shot effort to beat Mr. Bush in 2004. Jules Witcover generally writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun sunspot.net

To: TigerPaw who wrote (3708)	4/20/2002 12:50:43 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

From The Delightful Molly Ivins --Mephisto RELEASE: THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2002, AND THEREAFTER creators.com AUSTIN, Texas -- When in the course of the usual reasoned, civil debate on public affairs -- conducted always with courtesy and good cheer -- one finds one's self snarling, "Oh, shut up!" one has, I fear, been reading too much George Will. Being instructed what to think by the peerlessly pompous Mr. Will, perched upon his superiority and apparently in a permanent state of dudgeon over everybody else's stupidity, is reminiscent of being bullied by a snotty teacher. One is tempted to respond with the classic, frozen-faced Texas inquiry, "No bull?" Will is often worth reading if only so you can figure out why you disagree with him. Lately, he has been leading an entire phalanx of right-wing commentators in full cry over President Bush's loss of "moral clarity" in the Middle East. The sheer implausibility of finding moral clarity in the Middle East does not deter them. Better minds than Bush's are defeated by that challenge, but the moral-certainty crowd admits no shades of gray. Since Bush himself is fond of moral certainty -- it's good-doers versus evildoers in BushWorld -- he must be uncomfortable with what Will magisterially dismisses in a recent Newsweek essay as the "intellectual confusion and moral miasma ... that now permeate U.S. policy and media coverage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Personally, I think Ariel Sharon is a continuing, shattering disaster for Israel. If it is not clear to all by now that his policies -- leaving aside their morality -- don't work worth a damn, how much more evidence is needed? Ah, but the Middle East is so notoriously slippery -- except to those with the moral clarity of Will -- so let's leave it and skip to a place where everything is crystal clear. Latin America ... a simple place. Regard the 18-hour coup that took place last weekend in Venezuela. The elected president, Hugo Chavez, was overthrown by a military coup, and a new president representing the plutocrats of the nation promptly issued a decree ordering the closure of the country's Congress, the suspension of its Supreme Court and the dismissal of all locally elected government officials. Bad nooz: Every other country in the hemisphere, as per our treaties, promptly denounced the undemocratic takeover. But the United States kind of lost its grip on moral clarity on account of we don't like Chavez, who likes Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein, for pity's sake. And who is he to like people we don't like? The elected president of an independent country or something? And besides, he was about to mess with the national oil company, which happens to be our biggest foreign supplier. Since the coup failed, the Bushies have been disowning it as fast as they can, even though "senior members of the Bush administration met several times in recent months with leaders of the coalition that ousted ... Chavez, and agreed with them that he should be removed from office," according to The New York Times. And it turns out that our own assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, Otto Reich, was on the phone with the head plutocrat during the coup, giving him advice. Reich is an interesting study in moral clarity himself. He was a recess appointee by President Bush for the simple reason that he could not get confirmed by the Senate. Reich, a former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, is an anti-Castro zealot. While heading a State Department office in the 1980s, Reich ran covert propaganda effort against he Sandinistas. Before his latest government appointment, Reich was a lobbyist and right-wing television commentator. He is also believed to have helped get Orlando Bosch, a known terrorist, asylum in the United States. Bosch, himself a study in moral clarity, now resides peacefully in Miami after being convicted of terrorism in both the United States and Venezuela. Among his other acts was blowing up a civilian Cuban airliner with 73 people on it. Bosch was pardoned by Big George Bush -- I suppose indicating some lack of moral clarity there, too. Columnist Paul Krugman found irony in Condoleezza Rice's post-coup advice to the restored President Chavez to "respect constitutional processes." That would be the same constitution Chavez's opponents had tried to throw out, of course. But my favorite quote of the Venezuelan coup is in this passage from The New York Times: "Asked whether the administration now recognizes Mr. Chavez as Venezuela's legitimate president, one administration official replied, 'He was democratically elected,' then added, "Legitimacy is something that is conferred not just by a majority of the voters, however." How true. Sometimes a majority of the voters lose out to a five-to-four vote on the Supreme Court. Are we all morally clear now? To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. Originally Published on Thursday April 18, 2002

To: TigerPaw who wrote (3708)	4/23/2002 1:19:25 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Poppy Bush, James Banker, Carlucci and The Crusader ABC News with Peter Jennings mentioned The Crusader last night and how the powerful canon was initially turned down by the Pentagon because it was outdated for war today. It was originally designed to be used against Soviet tanks. ABC showed how Jr. Bush as governor opposed the crusader but once in office, because of the powerful people behind it, including his father, W put it in the budget. ABC also mentioned that outside experts told Rummy that the Crusader was useless as well. More of our tax money wasted to make the Bush family even richer! I saw Gore on tv the other night. He looked great. I hope he addresses our concern about the influence of Poppy Bush and the Caryle Group, how they use their influence to enrich themselves at the expense of the American tax payer.