Jordi Orwell Barcelona CAT in English

Some names you can see at the Web page of Fair Elections:
Argentina: Luis Tonelli. He declares in an interview:

"LT:...In Albany black people are afraid of voting."
- Why?
- LT:...In these counties, those who lead the electoral process are far right-wing activists that put signs of the type: "Before you vote, pay your taxes"; or spread rumors that if one black person votes, this person may be a convict that cannot vote."
- Is that intimidation?
LT: The Democrats say it is. This year the Democratic Party is doing the impossible to make people vote. Because the election is so close, each vote counts. But for Republicans it is not convenient that people vote because their base is very well organized through organizations such as the National Rifle Association."

Well, this gentleman may be the hell of a good social scientist, but is he a "non-partisan observer"? This November 2nd, he will be in Missouri, "observing" the US elections.

Chile: Manuel Antonio Garreton. He writes four days after September 11:

Looking at the terrorist attack to the United States in this September, one could not avoid to remember similar images of twenty-eight years ago, at similar times, when, supported by the same United States and using planes bought by Chile to this country, a group of terrorists disguised - that time of generals and army members - bombarded and assaulted La Moneda [the presidential residence of Chile].

Everything is horribly similar, although the symbols chosen for the attack of the terrorists of this time were more related to the financial and military world of the victim country, and that chosen by the Chilean military terrorists were related to the republican and democratic life of victim Chile. And another difference: the generals of that September 11 of 1973 were more coward in terms of risking their lives.

Is he really a "non-partisan observer"?

Mexico: Sergio Aguayo. He is a prestigious figure in Mexico, with a tradition of receiving support from the Ford and Mac Arthur Foundations. He just obtain the Stephen P. Duggan prize. He declares:

"I accepted a recognition [from the International Education Institute] as an act of minimal reciprocity to Global Exchange, a civic organization that companied Alianza Cívica [his own NGO] in the observation of Mexican elections."

"This is s way of colaborating with a part of the American society, which discovering the little confidence there is in the elections in some states recurs to foreigners that, like me, have some experience in the combat to electoral fraud."

Is he really a "non-partisan observer"?
Well, there are so many prestigious and moderate figures. No doubt about their reputation, only about their agenda. They don't need to be ultra-leftists to be biased. It's just enough to be Jimmy Carter boys.
|

Two facts: Bush is leading polls; most people outside the US don't like Bush. Once these people are tired of complaining ()and wining, they realized that their opinion is irrelevant in affecting the results of these elections, so they try to do something: they try to influence results or they try to invalidate these elections. The first try has been made by leftists like thos of "The Guardian," who under the "Operation Clark County" tried to persuade voter of this Ohio county to vote against Bush, that is, for Kerry. Result: a wave of voters' complaints and volunteers for Bush. The second try is the project Fair Election International run by an NGO called "Global Exchange." These "observers" are congresspeople, journalists, attorneys of several nations, who criticize US electoral authorities for being "partisan." Allegedly, these foreign observers are not. Wrong. They are a private organization with they own agenda. Under this logic there is no difference between elections in the US and countries that are transiting to democracy, such as El Salvador several years ago. Moreover, some media claim that the "Third World Monitors US Elections". And, of course, the leftist Guardian supports such supervision.
We see it coming: if Kerry does not win, they are ready to declare US elections a fraud, that is, we will have the second part of Michael Moore's movie plot.
|

Kofi Annan and his gang are now very outspoken. They are part of an international campaign against Bush, which consists of producing scandals to support Kerry, an enemy of an enemy, therefore a friend. Will they succeed? The American voters and only they will have the last word on that.
|

We all think we are right. Otherwise, why not thinking some other way? That’s fine, but at the same time, if we have a democratic ideal, we respect political opponents. They also have a saying on the country’s way of doing things. Last year, the Iraq intervention offered interesting phenomena to analyze. Those who oppose it did it partly because of humanitarian reasons. This war was going to cause million of deaths; oil interests underlie this war (“no blood for oil”). The war was immoral. Those who supported the war were criminals. Etc., etc., etc. And criminals are usually not listened to. Conclusion by logic association: we should treat those who supported the war as criminals. That is what happened in Spain last year. The headquarters of the Partido Popular, Aznar’s party, were attacked by leftist demonstrators and by anonymous bombs, Molotov bombs. Any public expression from their supporters was boycotted by leftist mobs. Those who organized these attacks thought to be answering those who were allegedly killing innocents. What’s the difference between this view and a fanatic view that justifies or promotes terrorist actions? These attacks do not kill and terrorists kill? Probably it is a difference of intensity, but not of reasoning.

Unfortunately, what was going on in Spain a year ago is also happening in the United States. Some people are being harassed for their political views. We are talking about violence and a "climate of fear," as Stanley Kurtz of NRO calls it. BlogistPatrick from New Jersey says it very clearly:

People are going to lose friends over this election year. People are probably going to lose husbands and wives. People will be fired from their jobs. People will quit their jobs. People will be arrested. People will be kicked out of schools. People will call for recounts.

I really hope that things calm down. Democracy means respect.

|

Well, this shouldn't be news, right?
News are that SADDAM Hussein believed that the United Nations system was so corrupt that it would protect his dictatorship from American aggression and allow him to complete quickly his quest for weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

There was a French Connection for Saddam, too. He was hoping to remain in power with with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac.

Yesterday, CNN showed a section called "Diplomatic License," where a French gentleman journalist from Radio France International criticized the American media for not covering well the Duelfer report. He said that the American media should be focusing more on how this report shows that Bush was wrong. Instead, he claims, the American media are focusing too much on the "Food for Oil" scandal, also called "Kofigate."

My comment is, how does he dare? The American media do criticize their president, much more than a state-run agency such as Radio France (International). This journalist-public-servant could not possible say something against Mr. Chirac. If he did, he would certainly receive bad news from Mr. Chirac.

To make the point clearer, I did not find anything about the Kofigate at Radio France International, so I perform some searches. I tried "Food for Oil", "Saddam", "Chirac", and "Chirac Saddam". Nothing.
|

John Kerry and his clumsy statement about the "global test" turned against him. Not only is he now portrayed as a flip-flopper, but also as "our man in America". This has been going on for a while. As Dana Milbank from the Washington Post reports, these days Kerry only speaks French in private. He is afraid of French media, which are going crazy for him. He refuses interviews! He is too busy!






Kerry is not going to do anything about it. The anti-French feeling, a very good job of Jacques Chirac, is now strong in America and Kerry's french connection is not going to sell.

These are the times. American is stigmatized in France. France is stigmatized in America. Bush didn't push much about this in the first debate. Only a little. Maybe in the next debate, we will hear more about Chirac.


|

OK. Kerry performed better than expected, but not quite as well for being a real threat to Bush. What is interesting is that some media are recovering hope and overdoing it. Example, some comentators at CNN. "Kerry made it, Kerry looked presidential"....Well, by no means Kerry defeated Bush. Moreover, he didn't do anything that could possible change his image as a flip-flopper. He just continued the trend he started last Monday of trumpeting his prospective international policies. He is like a kid with a new toy. He wants to project the image of a guy who is not just focused on Iraq or Afghanistan: European allies, the former Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea. Out of that he is not going to project a presidential image. Interestingly, it is precisely in these issues that Bush did better than Kerry! Out of two weeks of a renewed discourse, it is unlikely that Kerry can do anything better than just encourage his own supporters.
|