Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"whiting out the names" - the bush admin's MO

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:17 PM
Original message
"whiting out the names" - the bush admin's MO
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 02:17 PM by welshTerrier2
our government has always believed it had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations ... we topple democratically elected governments; we prop up dictators; we fund, we assassinate, we destroy ...

while these issues are never acknowledged by the US government, there is at least an underlying perception held by some that such actions are to further the interests of the American people ... in most instances, they clearly are not ...

what underlies such immoral international crimes is not US security but rather corporate interests ... in most cases, it's all about oil ... somebody's getting awfully rich on America's dime ... somebody's using the US military and the US intelligence community as their own private, corporate security forces ...

it's time for the opposition party to get to the bottom of this activity ... Democrats should stand up and question what is being done in our names ... specifically, they should ask what is being done to topple the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela ... this is raw imperialism and it should be stopped NOW!!


source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003228922_venezuela27.html

The U.S. government is spending millions of dollars in the name of democracy in Venezuela — bankrolling human-rights seminars, training emerging leaders, advising political parties and giving to charities.

But the money is raising deep suspicions among supporters of President Hugo Chávez, in part because the U.S. has refused to name many of the groups it's supporting.


Details of the spending emerge in 1,600 pages of grant contracts obtained by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act request. The U.S. Agency for International Development released copies of 132 contracts in all, but whited out the names and other identifying details of nearly half the grantees. <skip>

"It's simply for the security of the recipient," Porter (an official with USAID) said. "The only thing we've held back are the names of the groups."

U.S. officials say they simply want to promote dialogue and strengthen Venezuela's "fragile democratic institutions."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. This kind of crap gives democracy a bad name. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bush is constantly harping "bringing democracy" and that may be the point.
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 04:28 PM by glitch
it's not like the far right believes in democracy anyway, so calling all our fascist policies democratic is a twofer for them: discredit democracy as an ideal while looting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Democracy is good....
...except when they elect someone the corporations don't like.

I don't know if this would fly as a Democratic slogan, since they do feed at the same trough (not usually *quite* as blatantly), but IT'S THE CORPORATIONS, STUPID!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. do imperialists prefer democracies?
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 05:14 PM by welshTerrier2
one of these days, i'm going to write an essay on this subject ...

my current thinking is that imperialists do prefer democracies abroad and fascism at home ... the reason for this seems elementary ...

i hold the view that fascist governments are generally more stable and more powerful than democracies ... a dictator can entrench his power ... foreign governments and foreign corporations can either pay the bribe money or they aren't going to get what they want ... their only alternative when a dictator sets the price too high is to take him out ... that's not always so easy ...

much easier, in my view, is to "win" an election ... you can fund the opposition; you can rig the voting machines; you can use dirty tricks to make the currently elected regime look bad ...

the bush administration and Iraq are the perfect model for this perspective ... put in a puppet "democratic" government in Iraq while centralizing power in the US ... if the Iraqi government fails to cooperate, undermine it and pick a new one ... it's almost like a mafia-run protection racket ... if you want to stay in power, play ball with us ...

so, perhaps it's reasonable to "take them at their word" when they say they are "pro-democracy" ... but the term needs to be defined ... what they really mean is that they want to weaken foreign governments by forcing them to stand for election ... and then, if they refuse to let their countries and their people be exploited, "democracy" will ensure they are replaced ... it's not about a "government of the people, by the people and for the people"; it's about a government that the empire can more easily exploit ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think you're absolutely right!
Plese do write that essay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. They prefer dictatorial regimes wherever people don't cooperate
by their own free with the US corporate rule (which is practically everywhere).

However, at home as well as abroad they could not get away with it if they'd call it what it is - so they give a name that people like: "democracy", and they make sure that superficially it looks like it is what they call it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A Proud Liberal Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. American Exceptionalism = H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
American Exceptionalism = H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

When I was in school, I was told that a hypocrite was someone who told you not do something but did it himself anyway. A hypocrite functioned under the “do as I say NOT as I do” philosophy. Jesus is said to have condemned the Pharisees for being hypocrites. Hypocrites practice hypocrisy. I was taught this was one of the Earth’s lower moral life forms.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610a.htm
Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or, more cognately to the scope of this article, the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion.

Essentially its malice is identical with that of lying; in both cases there is discordance between what a man has in his mind and the simultaneous manifestation of himself. So far as the morality of the act goes, it is unimportant that this difference between the interior and the exterior be set out in words, as happens in formal lies, or be acted out in one's demeanor, as is true of simulation.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. … A classic example of a hypocritical act is to criticize others for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself.

American Exceptionalism is the philosophy that states no one else can do something EXCEPT America and those we have chosen. American Exceptionalism is hypocrisy because at its core there is a belief that we can do whatever we want and others must be restricted from similar actions. Under the Bush regime, American Exceptionalism has been taken to new lows.

HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ever since the days of “duck and cover,” I wondered why it was okay for America to spend billions on a nuclear arsenal that could destroy the Earth many times over while insisting that other countries should have no nuclear weapons. I was told it was because only the U.S. and its allies could be trusted with such dangerous weapons, despite the fact that we are the only country in history to use such weapons in an attack, twice. The two times nuclear weapons have been used it was on essentially civilian targets. This was a deliberate choice. Some of the scientist involved wanted the bombs exploded over a relatively flat area with a population, so they could quantify the destruction of the bombs. Purely military targets in the mountains and hills were rejected because the chances the data would not be a useful.

YELLOW-BELLIED CHICKENHAWKS
This particular group of people preaches about how great it is for our young people to fight in the war. You will not catch them or their children doing the fighting however. It isn’t the fighting man in Iraq that is getting rich, it is those who send them and would never go themselves.

PRODUCING MORE WMDs
The only WMDs found in Iraq were the inert remnants of poison gas. This has been used by some regime shills to justify our invasion and occupation. The U.S. has recently started to produce chemical and biological weapons again, saying they are needed for defensive purposes. Are they needed so we can sell them to the next Saddam that comes down the pike? If we need them for defense, why don’t other countries?

OPPRESSION AT HOME AND ABROAD
Our government in the last five plus years has illegally wiretapped phones, held prisoners without charge for years, has started a preventive (not even preemptive) war, and so on. They have done these things saying they are in the defense of freedom. How can one defend freedom at the same time as restricting freedom?

CASHING IN ON WAR AND PEOPLE’S SUFFERING
This is how Harry Truman dealt with war profiteers. From http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030512/editors:
When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944.
He believed the worst offenders had committed treason. The climate of the current administration would bring investigations into the people who would dare to speak out. They say we fighting for democracy and freedom in Iraq. The sad truth is profit is the major motivation.

RACISM IS CONDONED
The Department of Justice’s enforcement of the civil rights code has dramatically decreased under Bush to the point of near extinction. If a designated enemy is seen as being racist, swift and total condemnation follows. Profiling based on race instead of actions is now the new push. Looking Muslim is considered reason enough for the abuses that used to be visited on African Americans. Trouble is how does one look Muslim?

INDISCRIMINATE KILLING
When the invasion of Iraq started, there was period of thirty days called “Shock and Awe.”

From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/awe
to awe, (transitive verb) To inspire with fear and reverence.

The majority of shells and bombs used on Iraq during these days were not “smart” bombs. They killed babies as well as Republican Guard troops. This indiscriminate killing was designed to bring fear to the entire country. We gave lip service to “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis but our intentions were anything but. This attitude has been carried on through the duration, American troops have broken discipline, and the indiscriminate killing continues.

STEALING ELECTIONS
This is the most glaring cases of hypocrisy. The Bush regime talks about exporting democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, when it does not exist here at home. Additionally, the democracy in Iraq is a façade; candidates during the elections there were not allowed to advocate the withdrawal of American troops, despite nearly 90% of the population favoring just such a move.

YOUNG LIVES WASTED
This is the most tragic of my points. This includes the dead of the war. This includes the injured of the war, many that come home to find their benefits are non-existent. Soldiers recovering in Army hospitals have been asked to pay for their own food. Those mentally affected find their treatment to be lacking if it exists at all. However, the most tragic part of all this is how the Bush regime uses these young people to garner support for their immoral and illegal war. They have equated support for the troops with support for the war. People do not want to appear to be not supporting the troops so they feel compelled to support the war.

A quick summary:

Having nuclear weapons
Yellow-bellied Chickenhawks
Producing more WMDs
Oppression at home and abroad
Cashing in on war and people’s suffering
Racism is condoned
Indiscriminate killing
Stealing elections
Young lives wasted



Offend a Conservative – Use Your Brain
Support Our Troops – Bring Them Home Now

http://aproudliberal.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. The same people they supported in Central America
during the war against Nicaragua and indigenous peoples during the 1980's, groups tied to extreme right-wing elements, Knights of Malta and Opus Dei.

The usual suspects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
9. Has the Seattle Times forgotten?
Has the Times forgotten already the aborted coup in Venezuela in 2002, sponsored, aided and abetted by the Bush administration? Why isn't this prominently mentioned in the story? It seems that a healthy dose of cynicism is required here, but the Pollyannas at the Times seem content with the administration's excuses for covering up just who it's bankrolling to "promote dialogue" in Venezuela.

Note to the Times: The sound of gunfire followed by the sound of bodies hitting the ground is not dialogue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. did you read the whole article at the link?
while the journalist did not directly accuse the US of engineering the 2002 coup against Chavez, there are extensive references in the article to Venezuelan suspicions that that was exactly what happened ...

here's one such extract:


But friction is mounting as Chávez seeks re-election. He holds a wide lead in the polls, and predicts the U.S. will try to discredit the December vote if he wins, with ammunition provided by U.S.-funded nonprofit groups.

Chávistas say their president has good reason to be concerned, given how quickly U.S. officials recognized his opponents during a short-lived coup in 2002. Immediately after Chávez was driven from power, the International Republican Institute's then president, George Folsom, issued a statement praising those who "rose up to defend democracy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. That's why I said "prominently mentioned"
Paragraph 33, after much we-said, they-said "balanced" reporting isn't very "prominent" for my taste. The casual reader isn't likely to get all the way to the 33rd paragraph, and to that point, the story contains a lot of alarmist comments from the Venezuelan government and a lot of reasonable sounding comments from our own State Department.

It's like watching an M. Night Shymalan movie: Everything seems to be going one way, and you're convinced that the crazy-sounding person is off his rocker and the voices of reason are doing noble battle against the delusion, until we get to the denouement, and it turns out that the reasonable-sounding folks were really the ones who weren't quite what they seemed. While that might make for good story-telling, it makes for very poor news reporting. The alarmist Venezuelans actually have a very good reason to be alarmed at State Department financial shenanigans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC