August 16, 2004

Dewey Defeats Truman, Indeed

Well, it looks like I goofed my last post pretty severely. I wanted to write about Hugo Chavez before bed, and this is what I get.

He didn't lose, he won. Damn.

By the way, Britain's Independent was the newspaper that told me he lost. Couldn't they have left their mistake out in the world and just corrected it like I did? Bah.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 16, 2004 09:40 AM
Comments

I have a Colombian friend at the World Bank who has met Chavez and said he truly is a stupid man. I don't doubt that he is. But Marc Cooper's recent piece, and the link it included to a supposedly "leftist" critique by Randy Paul were both shockingly short on substance. Marc, after acknowleding the corrupt, oligarchic nature of his opponents, and the "righteous anger of millions of impoverished Venezuelans" supporting Chavez, then accuses Chavez of being "authoritarian and intellectually-insulting" without offering examples and without saying why this demands his removal from office by whatever means necessary. Paul's article talks about the behavior of Chavez's supporters in the anti-recall campaign only, not his actions as President.

So...unless you can lead me to some more convincing anti-Chavez links, ones that show me he really is worse than the other tin-pots that have been allowed to finish out their Presidential terms througout Latin American history, then I'll continue to be happy that the manifest destiny crowd in the Bush Administration and over at the National Review and the Weekly Standard have lost an opportunity to gloat and to demonstrate their indifference to those whose lot it is to spend their lives in abject poverty. The oligarchy STILL needs to get its ass kicked.

Posted by: Markus Rose at August 16, 2004 10:32 AM

Markus,

it's true that the oligarchies in Latin America have done the people of that continent no favors. But Venezuala can go the way of Chile, or they can go the way of Cuba. Which would you choose?

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 10:38 AM

Markus,

Randy Paul and Marc Cooper have been writing about this guy for YEARS. They don't need to start over with "Venezuela for dummies" every single time they post something new about it on their blogs. I'm sorry if you've only just now begun to pay attention to Venezuela.

Yep. The oligarchy needs to get its ass kicked. There are various ways to do that. Chavez says Fidel Castro is his role model. I have been to Chile, and I suggest it as an alternate model as David does. (And David lived there.)

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 16, 2004 10:50 AM

David -- If I was poor by Latin American standards, I'd wish I lived in Cuba. If I was middle-class, I'd be trying to get to Chile...

Posted by: Markus Rose at August 16, 2004 10:59 AM

Well Markus Rose, you're simply beyond hope then.

Posted by: Stephen at August 16, 2004 11:01 AM

Jimmy Carter observed the recall, and is vouching for the results.

Since he's the same guy who holds onto the myth that Yasser Arafat was "fairly, freely and democratically elected," despite the fact that his opponent was an 87 year-old, female, retired social worker that no one had ever heard of, and the polling stations were manned by Fatah gunmen, I think I'll reserve an ounce of skepticism about the results.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 11:19 AM

Besides, Markus, the Bush Administration dropped its opposition to Chavez, and the oil companies are perfectly happy with him. See here.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 16, 2004 11:24 AM

Markus, you're nuts if you'd want to live in Cuba for any reason. Poor Chileans are a lot better off. Not only do they live in a liberal democracy, they aren't doomed to be poor forever. Maybe you should visit Chile and see for yourself. It's not a Third World country, you know. See my Chilean photo album.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 16, 2004 11:29 AM

I'm glad to see that my friends on the Left are already cheering that a Leftist dictator has remained in office. I remarked in another thread that the Left appears to me to have a maturity problem. This is an example of it.

Posted by: Ben at August 16, 2004 11:45 AM

My company used to do some work in Chile, Mr. T. Those who went raved about the experience.

Posted by: Gerry at August 16, 2004 11:46 AM

Jimmy Carter did not say the fragment that you quoted.
Arafat's opponent was not 87 years old.
Arafat's opponent was not a retired social worker.
Arafat's opponent had substantial name recognition, as a member of the Palestinian National Council since 1965 and the founder of the Al Inaash al-Usra society.

Just extending and clarifying for SoCalJustice.

Posted by: Factcheck at August 16, 2004 11:49 AM

My position on Venezuela has consistently been that of placing a plague on both of their houses.

The opposition did not organize itself well, thought that they could get rid of Chávez first through a coup, then through a strike instead of at the ballot box.

Chávez, for hs part has consistently creaed more divisions within society, mistakes bombast for persuasion and seems determined to foment trouble where he doesn't belong.

I don't have to embrace the opposition in seeing Chávez's numerous flaws, nor do I have to embrace Chávez to see the numerous flaws in the opposition. It doesn't take much to realize two things:

1.) That Hugo Chávez did not occur in a vacuum.

2.) That Venezuela, with its vast natural resources should not have the levels of poverty that it has.

If the opposition wants to avoid future Hugo Chávez's then they need to give some serious thought about putting an end to the oligarchic business as usual in Venezuelan society and offer their citizens something other than the status quo.

The surest prevention against anti-democratic populist demagoguery is a just and inclusive society.

Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 11:49 AM

For those who question the dossier against Mr. Chavez, check out this article by Bernard Aronson from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/opinion/14aronson.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors

Posted by: Ben at August 16, 2004 11:50 AM

Ah, a mea culpa.

Hey, don't write in haste before the official result is declared, I say. :-)

Well I suppose its a mistake many people could make, but there you go.

BTW, Michael, I read that Independent article this morning in a cafe (in the print version that cannot be deleted!) and I thought it was slightly dodgy considering the unreliabilty of exit polls there (considering some were taken by biased organisations.)

I also prayed they were not accurate. It looks like my prayers have been answered, and I will drink a toast to Chavez tonight. Congratulations.

Posted by: Benjamin at August 16, 2004 11:51 AM

Ben,

Do you see me cheering?

So Cal Justice,

What fact check said. Also, it's more than just Carter:

OAS Secretary-General Cesar Gaviria said observers "have not found any element of fraud in the process." The State Department also said there was no evident pattern of fraud in the balloting but a final judgment depends on what observers report.
Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 11:52 AM

Stephen -- what makes me "simply beyond hope"? I support political liberty and economic pluralism, and I expect that Cuba will move in that direction fairly soon, just as a whole bunch of other formerely communist nations have. In the meantime, kids get their cavities filled and don't have to live in garbage dumps...

Michael -- I'll be looking into educating myself on Chile. But as you point out, it's not a Third World Country (in contrast to Venezuela, Brazil, etc...that is, I don't think they really have the problem of wealth being locked up in the hands of a few families that they have in other countries). Chile is a capitalist democracy, not a plutocracy.

I give more credence to your comments on Chile given the fact that you have actually been there. If you tell me that your views on Cuba are based on first-hand experience, I'd give them more credence as well. And I am still looking for that Venezuela-for-dummies article that will enlighten me as to why I should be more upset about Chavez than I am about any other stupid or corrupt Latin American public official.

Posted by: Markus Rose at August 16, 2004 11:59 AM

Markus,

I have not been to Cuba, although I very seriously want to go. I'm pissed that the Bush Adminstration won't let me.

See the post above this one re: Venezuela for dummies.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 16, 2004 12:04 PM

Factcheck:

you write: Jimmy Carter did not say the fragment that you quoted.

Carter on Arafat's election: Palestinians conducted a peaceful, transparent election in 1996, which my center monitored, and chose a president and Palestinian Authority members who were universally accepted as legitimate.

you write: Arafat's opponent was not 87 years old.

That was my mistake, she was 72.

you write: Arafat's opponent was not a retired social worker.

Wrong.

CNN: Arafat's only opponent, 72-year-old social worker Samiha Khalil, picked up 10 percent of the votes, the Palestinian election commission said early Sunday

you write: Arafat's opponent had substantial name recognition, as a member of the Palestinian National Council since 1965 and the founder of the Al Inaash al-Usra society.

Wrong again. See the CNN article.

you write: Just extending and clarifying for SoCalJustice.

Please do it with links, so you can back up your assertions, most of which are incorrect.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 12:05 PM

Randy Paul writes: What fact check said.

Ok, then how about some links from you that contradict USA Today and CNN.

Waiting for them from Factcheck, but since you think he's right, perhaps you can help him out.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 12:06 PM

I'm pissed that the Bush Adminstration won't let me.

You need to cut down on your drinking.

Posted by: Benjamin at August 16, 2004 12:09 PM

nice comeback SoCal.

LOL

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 12:16 PM

Well you acknowledged you got the age wrong and you haven't come up with anything to indicate that there was fraud in Arafat being elected.

Neither did your USA Today article. I'll concede the Carter quote and his opponent being a social worker. Carter was among the observers as he was in Venezuela and there haven't been allegations of fraud cited int eh Palestinian election. Are you surprised that Arafat was elected?

In any event, you made an attempt to smear Carter that frankly doesn't hold up, least of all in Venezuela as the USDOS and the OAS seem to confirm.

Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 12:16 PM

>>>"David -- If I was poor by Latin American standards, I'd wish I lived in Cuba."

Markus,

if I'm not mistaken, the poor in Cuba don't wish they lived there. That's why they'll risk death to leave.

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 12:24 PM

Randy Paul writes: Well you acknowledged you got the age wrong and you haven't come up with anything to indicate that there was fraud in Arafat being elected.

Um, don't you think that Arafat running against an unkown, 72 year old FEMALE (caps to indicate this is an Arab "election" where mysogyny is ingrained - and that's an understatement) social worker is prima facie evidence that it was not a "fair" election?

you write: In any event, you made an attempt to smear Carter that frankly doesn't hold up, least of all in Venezuela as the USDOS and the OAS seem to confirm.

Please. Anyone who says the 1996 Palestinian election was "fair" is ridiculous.

He repeated that assertion in the New York Times in 2002, calling the elections "open and fair."

That election is about as fair as if George Bush was running against your grandmother, whom no one had ever heard of, this November.

I don't trust him when it comes to monitoring elections, because of his public statements on one of the most ridiculous elections of the past decade.

And all I said was that "I'll reserve an ounce of skepticism" regarding the results. Which is hardly a "smear." It's common sense based on his less than pristine track record.

You have a right to feel otherwise. I don't care.

But I included you because you said "What Factcheck said" when he was far more wrong than I was.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 12:26 PM

Arafat's election was like those elections they used to have in the old Soviet Union. The only difference is that the commies made no fiction about it being just one candidate.

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 12:30 PM

BTW, my last link was not to the Carter piece in the Times itself, but to a story that quoted Carter's op-ed, because I couldn't find it upon quick search.

But I just found it:

the Carter Center helped to monitor a democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, which was well organized, open and fair.

At no point during his article does he mention the name, gender, age, background, or occupation of Arafat's opponent. So I'll do it for him. Samiha Kahlil, a female, 72 year old, unknown, social worker.

Randy and "Factcheck" might find that unimportant. But if Al Gore happened to "luck" into running against Samiha Kahlil in 2000, he might have had a cakewalk himself.

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "fair" is.

sigh.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 12:33 PM

SoCalJustice:

Um, don't you think that Arafat running against an unkown, 72 year old FEMALE (caps to indicate this is an Arab "election" where mysogyny is ingrained - and that's an understatement) social worker is prima facie evidence that it was not a "fair" election?

It may be evidence that the election was unfair, pitting a weak opponent against a strong opponent, but it's not evidence of fraud and that is what the Carter Center determines. By the same argument Alan Keyes running against Barack Obama would be unfair. If you know of evidence of fraud then pass it on. A weak opponent against a strong opponent is not evidence of fraud.

Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 12:38 PM

Randy,

there was no fraud during the elections in the old Soviet Union (though they were clearly unfair).

Carter would have approved obviously.

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 12:41 PM

...if I'm not mistaken, the poor in Cuba don't wish they lived there. That's why they'll risk death to leave.

And the Mexican poor do the same thing, don't they?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 16, 2004 12:42 PM

Meanwhile, poor Latin Americans want to get in to Chile.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 16, 2004 12:44 PM

Arafat had one election. It was one of those bullshit "one man, one vote, one time" deals. The rest of the details are footnotes.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 16, 2004 12:45 PM

Randy Paul,

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where I typed the word "fraud" in any of my posts.

However, it was clearly a rigged election, as the outcome was determined in advance by the nature of the contest. You think that was due to innocent happenstance? Sure. If you run into anyone who claims to be a Brooklyn Bridge salesman, do yourself a favor and run as fast as you can.

Comparing it to Obama vs. Keyes is moral equivalence of the most ridiculous order.

That race started out a lot more even, and then there was a media driven scandal. Again, if there was never an opponent named Jack Ryan, and, in his stead, existed a "politician" named Samiha Kahlil, you'd have more of a point. Of course, people can easily joke that Illinois politics makes Palestinian politics look "open and fair," but it would be just that, a joke - albeit a funny one.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 12:47 PM

Randy -

The fraud in the Pali election is less in how the election was conducted than in who was allowed to run.

Posted by: Ben at August 16, 2004 12:47 PM

BTW, one more comment about Carter.

In his USA today op-ed, he writes that Arafat and the PLC were "universally accepted as legitimate."

In his New York Times op-ed, written just a few months earlier, he wrote:

When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed a message offering them full participation in the process of developing a permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they refused to accept this proposal.

Not that I personally give a rip what Hamas thinks, but I believe their rejection contravenes the notion that the election was "universally accepted as legitimate." And that's notwithstanding the obvious flaws in the process.

People have every right to trust Jimmy all they want with his election monitoring, I don't care. But I'm not sold. In fact, I'm the opposite of sold.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 01:08 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where I typed the word "fraud" in any of my posts.

The election observers determine whether or not an election was conducted fraudelently, so by conflating these two issues, you're criticizing Carter for something he has no control over.

It's not the job of election observers to determine who the candidates are, but whether the election itself was conducted fairly. If there is no evidence that the voting itself was fraudulent, what are the observers supposed to say?

Ben's point is well taken, but again that is not the job of election observers.

David,

Nice strawman.

Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 01:09 PM

In fact, I'm the opposite of sold.

Not to imply that I'm "bought," but you all know what I meant.

I really want to like Jimmy Carter, and I really want to believe that he's the best post-presidency president, as we're oft told, but I just don't get him.

What's to gain by being so vapid in the face of facts? An uber-left wing hug fest?

BTW, I'm a Democrat - not that it should matter.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 01:11 PM

Randy writes: The election observers determine whether or not an election was conducted fraudelently, so by conflating these two issues, you're criticizing Carter for something he has no control over.

That's ridiculous. It is also his repsonsibility to inform the world about the nature of the election. If that nature GUARANTEED and PREDETERMINED an outcome, he has an obligation to inform us of those facts.

He continues to ignore and sidestep the obvious.

As do you, I might add.

And that is just silly. It's insulting, too.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 01:13 PM

Randy,

maybe you better look up the word 'strawman.'

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 01:15 PM

Factchek does not express an opinion on anything. We merely extend and clarify for people that need such.

Factcheck will charge $1 per link requested after the first link posting - the first time, as always, is free. Money for factcheck can be donated to the Democratic National Comittee, because Factcheck is rabidly partisan, even though we have no opinions.

Factcheck will respond to your rebuttal in parts:

Your newly revised quote from Carter is accurate. It does not, however, include the quoted statement "fairly, freely and democratically elected," which you first put in quotes, becase Carter did not make that statement. Factcheck cotninues to maintain that Carter did not say what you quoted him as saying. Factcheck, as usual, has no opinion on Jimmy Carter, or the legitmacy of the PA elections.

Factcheck acknoleges your substantial error in the age of the opponent. Factcheck, as usual, has no opinion on weather the fact that you made up her age makes it more or less likley you made up the rest of your points.

Factcheck does not use trashy media like USAToday to prove it's points. For bios of major ME figures, Factcheck prevers to use the Arab-Israeli Politics Profiles Archive. You can find Samiha Khalil's profile at:

http://www.la.utexas.edu/course-materials/government/chenry/mena/roles/aip/profiles96/0063.html

While the opponent did found a Social Work Society, factcheck believes that the characterization of a founder of a Social Work Society, as well a member of the Palestinian National Council a a "Retired Social Worker" is not accurate. Factcheck, as usual, has no opinion on your error being an error of omission or one of malice.

We consider the rebuttal to point three substantial enough to cover point four. I guess we do have an opinion, there.

In the future, rebuttals from factcheck will cost you $1 per link requested. This rebuttal would come at a $1 fee. Thank you for using Factcheck - "We're Always Right!"

Posted by: Factcheck at August 16, 2004 01:18 PM

Factcheck, as usual, has no opinion on your error being an error of omission or one of malice

Is Factcheck clinically insane?

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 01:20 PM

Factcheck does not use trashy media like USAToday to prove it's points.

Umm, Factcheck, then how else do I post an op-ed by Jimmy Carter that he wrote for the USA Frickin' Today???

Jeebus.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 01:21 PM

Factcheck forgot to use Factchek's spellchecker.

Posted by: Factcheck at August 16, 2004 01:23 PM

Factcheck does not use CNN either, if Factcheck can avoid it. Factcheck, being a collective of more than one person in more than one body, cannot be clinically insane. Factcheck does not have MPD.

Posted by: Factcheck at August 16, 2004 01:25 PM

David,

Carter was responsible for getting several dissidents released from the USSR and had no illusions about the Soviets. I know what a strawman is.

SoCalJustice:

And that is just silly. It's insulting, too.

Oh please. The Carter Center, the OAS and the USDOS have all said that there is no evidence of fraud in the Venezuelan election.

If that nature GUARANTEED and PREDETERMINED an outcome, he has an obligation to inform us of those facts.

What do you propose he do?

Whether you like Arafat or not (and I certainly don't) did you think that he wouldn't run? Do you think that the election observers should determine who runs in an election? Do you know of another candidate who would have beaten Arafat?

The Carter Center also certified the fairness of the elections that got rid of the Sandinistas, btw. I don't think they have an agenda here.

In fact both the extreme left and the extreme right have criticized Carter regarding Venezuela. Pissing off extremists is usually the sure sign of a job well done.

Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 01:35 PM

Randy:

Oh please. The Carter Center, the OAS and the USDOS have all said that there is no evidence of fraud in the Venezuelan election

Oh please? We were talking about the Palestinian election and Carter's related remarks. Which were ridiculous, partly because of glaring factual ommissions in his declarations of what constitutes "fair."

you write: What do you propose he do?

I propose that he be honest, and tell people that while there was little evidence of "fraud" (read: Arafat thugs dumping all the Samiha ballots into the Mediterranean), that the election itself was rigged from the get go, because there was zero chance of a different outcome and that it was therefore, by definition, not "fair." BTW, on his website, he concedes: problems with secrecy of ballots, general disorganization, and some intimidation by party agents and security officials, but he doesn't raise those issues at all in his two op-ed pieces, let alone discuss the rigged nature of the election.

I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

you write: Do you think that the election observers should determine who runs in an election?

Ok, now I think you're being purposefully obtuse. Of course I don't think that obvservers or monitors should DECIDE who runs in the election. What I think they should do is OBSERVE and MONITOR the circumstances of the election and REPORT to the world those circumstances, which INCLUDE the fact that the "election" was RIGGED by virtue of the lack of any colorable chance of success, by any reasonable measure, on the part of Arafat's opponent. He doesn't even bring this up. That's not a trivial point.

How can you not get that?

you write: Do you know of another candidate who would have beaten Arafat?

What a weak argument.

Why not let's start with the proposition that the other candidate should be, I don't know, a man. That might help slightly in the eyes of the Arab "electorate."

You write: Pissing off extremists is usually the sure sign of a job well done.

Key word being "usually."

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 01:53 PM

>>>"Thank you for using Factcheck - "We're Always Right!"

Hey Factcheck,

is that true even when you mispell your own name as "Factchek"? I'll buy that for a dollar.

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 02:05 PM

>>>"Carter was responsible for getting several dissidents released from the USSR and had no illusions about the Soviets. I know what a strawman is."

Randy,

I know Carter didn't like the Soviets; he learned to hate them when they repayed his kindness by invading Afghanistan. Then he boycotted the Olympics to really stick it to them. Boy that hurt.

And I'm sure he dissaproved of Soviet elections as well; which is why it's so strange that he approved of the Soviet style elections Arafat conducted. Don't you think that's strange? That's no strawman.

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 02:12 PM

The topic here is Venezuela. The question is was there evidence of fraud in the election. The Carter Center says no. The OAS says no. The USDOJ says no. The Carter Center and the OAS also monitored much of the leadup to the referendum including the collection of signatures and argued against the Chávista claims that the collection had been insufficient.

Yet you want use the Palestinian election to question Carter's integrity on the Venezuelan election and the criticism just isn't holding water. The Carter Center has a solid record of oberving elections in East Timor, Sierra Leone, Mali and numerous other countries. It doesn't rubber stamp the elections and criticized the elections in Zambia.

I'm certainly no fan of Chávez, but absent any evidence to the contrary, I'll take the word of the OAS, the Carter Center and the USDOS.

Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 02:13 PM

David,

Perhaps you should ask Eduard Kuznetsov and Anatoly Sharansky about Carter's role in getting them released from prison in the USSR.

You can't ask Alexander Ginzburg as he has since passed away.

Carter didn't trust the USSR long before the invasion of Afghanistan (another strawman, btw) and he had no illusions about them. Still a strawman.

Posted by: Randy Paul at August 16, 2004 02:17 PM

you write: Yet you want use the Palestinian election to question Carter's integrity on the Venezuelan election and the criticism just isn't holding water

For you, it's not. And that's your right.

The man has shot his credibility when it comes to monitoring elections because of his inability to be honest about important elements of the electoral process.

That doesn't mean he's wrong 100% of the time. It means that his word, when it comes to elections, should be taken with a grain of salt. And again, Randy, that is all I did, saying, again, that "I'll reserve an ounce of skepticism."

I think the fact that he criticized the elections in Zambia, but didn't criticize painfully obvious flaws in the Palestinian election, is not something that runs in his favor.

He has blindspots.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 16, 2004 02:18 PM

Randy,

I'll try again.

Given Carter's burning hatred of the Soviets (happy?), isn't it strange that he approved of the Soviet style elections Arafat conducted.

You say Carter's only criteria was "fraudulence", not fairness. Would he have approved of the Soviet elections, and why not.

Posted by: David at August 16, 2004 03:23 PM

FactCheck never says "I was wrong", because FactCheck always refers to itself in the third person.

Posted by: Michael Brazier at August 17, 2004 01:25 AM

From today's International Herald Tribune: Evidence of an electoral fraud is growing:

CARACAS The perception that a massive electronic fraud led to President Hugo Chávez's mandate not being cut short in the recall referendum on Sunday is rapidly gaining ground in Venezuela. All exit polls carried out on the day had given the opposition an advantage of between 12 percent and 19 percent. But preliminary results announced by the government-controlled National Electoral Council at 3:30 a.m. gave Chávez 58.2 percent of the vote, against 41.7 percent for the opposition. At first people scratched their heads in disbelief, including many Chávez supporters, but accepted these figures after César Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States, and former President Jimmy Carter said their own quick counts coincided with the electoral council's figures. Two days after the referendum, however, evidence is growing that the software of the touch-screen voting machines had been tampered with. The opposition has requested that the votes be recounted manually and that the boxes holding the voting papers, currently stored in army garrisons, be put under the custody of international observers.

But there's no way there could be any evidence fraud. The IHT must be lying to smear Jimmy Carter. I mean, Jimmy Carter told us there wasn't any fraud, and he has such a good track record...

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 18, 2004 08:18 PM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn