http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/8/163435/3072

quote:
Remember when Kerry sided with the Venezuelan elites during the 2004 Presidential campaign? Remember how much flak Kerry caught from progressives for parroting the lies of the Bush dictatorship? We now have Howard Dean following in his footsteps:


CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Interview With Shimon Peres; Interview With Benjamin Netanyahu

Aired January 8, 2006 - 11:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

DEAN: Look at what's happening in Latin America. This president, while saying that he wants to further democracy and capitalism, is driving people in the opposite direction.

We need real leadership in this country and we don't have it right now.

BLITZER: Are you blaming the president on the elections in Bolivia or on the elections in Venezuela? Is that what you're saying?

DEAN: We had an enormous opportunity, when this president took office, and he said he was going to reach out to Latin America. Instead, he has turned them off. He's been high-handed with them; he's rejected them.

He's ignored the economic plight of their folks. And so, we're getting something that I think most Americans wish we didn't have, which is left-leading regimes in these places. We need a president who will work constructively and cooperatively with our allies around the world so that we really can move capitalism and democracy further into the world and not turn off people. When you turn people off, as the most powerful nation in the world, they are obviously going to do something that is not in our best interest. And that's exactly what's going on right now.


Wonder why the Dems are so spineless? Essentially, they are no different than the Republicans. The only thing they disagree on is the initiation of agenda. Republicans favor a type of international "military Keynesianism" where as Democrats favor more low-key influence through globalism.


I think this poster hit the nail on the head:

quote:
"And so, we're getting something that I think most Americans wish we didn't have, which is left-leading regimes in these places." --Howard Dean

Hunh?! Hello, Earth to Howard Dean! Those "left-leading" (left-leaning?) "regimes" are democratically elected governments which have the support of the majority of the populations in those countries. It's called democracy Howard, look it up!

Does Dean think most Americans wish those countries didn't have democracy? Is he really so boneheaded ignorant?

"so that we really can move capitalism and democracy further into the world and not turn off people."

WTF does that even mean?! Hey Howard, check out the history of Latin America and the Carribean and how the US has "moved capitalism and democracy" into those regions in the last couple centuries and you may get an idea of why the people down there are "turned off".

I really like Howard Dean. I voted for him in the primary and even campaigned for the guy. I've stood behind every critcism he's leveled against the Repulicans and the president.

But this......this is just ignorant, stupid, condecending gringo arrogance!

Maybe Howard should stick to commenting on domestic policy. This is ridiculous.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to go back to 19th century and then move forward to understand how the USA has "moved" "democracy" and "capitalism" into Latin America and the Caribbean.

It's not Republican vs. Democrat. Every president has supported and abetted US corporate exploitation/predation of Latin America and the Caribbean.

FDR was no less guilty of that than Eisenhower for instance. Nixon, no more than LBJ for another.

Gringo exploitation of the peoples of those regions is non-partisan. In fact it's so much a part of our history that even people like Dean are comfortable in speaking about our neighbors to the south as if they are just ignorant, angry little children who need us (US) to help raise them up and make them more complete....more like us.

It's sad really.
Original Post
Yep, the Democratic National Convention = Republicanism lite. Democracy is great as long as it produces a "real democracy." You know the type I'm talking about. The kind where the richest 1% buy the candidate through campaign contributions so that they can continue screwing the other 99%.

Why can't we just leave other nations the fuck alone? bang
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Yep, the Democratic National Convention = Republicanism lite. Democracy is great as long as it produces a "real democracy." You know the type I'm talking about. The kind where the richest 1% buy the candidate through campaign contributions so that they can continue screwing the other 99%.

Why can't we just leave other nations the fuck alone? bang


Haha, not as long as the rich can profit off of it. Wink

On the bright side however, this cannot last forever. The facts show that every second and third world country that adopts Neoliberalism goes to shit. I'm not saying Stalin was a sterling leader but look at the living standard of the average Russian citizen under him, then compare it to the living standard of the average Russian now. Yes, Russia has a higher GDP per capita, BECAUSE there is now a class of a few rich owners who own everything. Look at the living standard of everyone else, they can't even feed themselves.

The problem is, the Dems are getting rich off this too. As a result, they support it all the way and just disagree with the Republican methodology.
quote:
Originally posted by ItAintEazy:
Yeah, Dean is good at Bush-bashing, but people tend to forget that he was a tax-cutting "moderate" Democrat in Vermont.

yes he cut taxes for corporations but he also made sure people had healthcare in his state.
I don't agree with everything Dean said in the article. The problem is he is trying too hard to censor himself and is not really speaking his mind. Everytime he says what he really means, people get pissed off. That's just my opinion because I've listened to him a lot.

Dean is right about the world-and not just Latin America -reacting against US policies. they don't want leadership that will support US or US-like policies.

Also, Capitalism and Democracy in theory should be a positive thing. These politicians have abused power and have made Democracy to be seen as a negative. It's like Religion. Religion can be a very positive thing in someone's life but when misused, it can be seen as negative. people will start to shy away from it thinking that it is bad.

When you have people that have only seen negative things from your country, it's hard to build alliances. Alliances are important to have in this world. it does not have to be seen as secretly trying to influence another country's policies.
^Well, I won't debate over whether Capitalism is essentially good or not, but that's not the point. The point is, these left-wing leaders were DEMOCRATICALLY elected whether we like or not. So they don't like US foreign policy...OK, so what we invade them and force in a new puppet leader? Democracy is not a problem, these leaders were democratically elected and lead their countries through democratic processes, so this stuff about "spreading democracy" is bunk. Democracy does not mean "pro-US".

You see what I mean?

And, there are very good reasons these people aren't supporting US Capitalism: because starting with the Monroe Doctrine and culminating in the 70's and 80's during the Cold War, the US launched all sorts of military incursions into these countries. We set up and supported tyrannical Neoliberal Capitalist dictators like Pinochet, Noriega and Batista. Even now, the CIA trains death squads on US bases to murder labor union leaders in Colombia for the Coca-Cola company so the managers don't have to sign labor contracts and don't have to abolish sweatshops.

All this stuff about "democracy" is bunk. If we cared about whether or not those countries were run democratically, we wouldn't have supported Pinochet, Batista, Noriega and other proto-Fascist Neoliberal dictators. The only reason the corporate muckety-mucks have their panties in a bunch is because this means less oil drilling for US companies in Latin America and no more sweatshops.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
^Well, I won't debate over whether Capitalism is essentially good or not, but that's not the point. The point is, these left-wing leaders were DEMOCRATICALLY elected whether we like or not. So they don't like US foreign policy...OK, so what we invade them and force in a new puppet leader? Democracy is not a problem, these leaders were democratically elected and lead their countries through democratic processes, so this stuff about "spreading democracy" is bunk. Democracy does not mean "pro-US".

You see what I mean?

And, there are very good reasons these people aren't supporting US Capitalism: because starting with the Monroe Doctrine and culminating in the 70's and 80's during the Cold War, the US launched all sorts of military incursions into these countries. We set up and supported tyrannical Neoliberal Capitalist dictators like Pinochet, Noriega and Batista. Even now, the CIA trains death squads on US bases to murder labor union leaders in Colombia for the Coca-Cola company so the managers don't have to sign labor contracts and don't have to abolish sweatshops.

All this stuff about "democracy" is bunk. If we cared about whether or not those countries were run democratically, we wouldn't have supported Pinochet, Batista, Noriega and other proto-Fascist Neoliberal dictators. The only reason the corporate muckety-mucks have their panties in a bunch is because this means less oil drilling for US companies in Latin America and no more sweatshops.


but just because someone wants an open dialog and build alliances with other countries does not mean they want to control their elections. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past and may continue.

I don't think Dean believes in controlling elections and having puppet governments. I could be wrong, but based on everything that I've heard and read about Dean so far, I don't think I am. his comments in the interview does not make me think that I'm wrong.

We do need to have positive relationships with other countries. I don't believe in isolation.
quote:
Originally posted by keylargo:
but just because someone wants an open dialog and build alliances with other countries does not mean they want to control their elections. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past and may continue.


Do you honestly believe what you are saying? Do you honestly believe our government just wants to talk? sck Talk about what? Letting our market influence theirs? What is wrong with them being economically independent, pray tell?

They are open to dialogue. It's just that we don't want to talk to them. Our goverment refuses to accept anyone that is not a capitalist. Bottom line.

quote:
I don't think Dean believes in controlling elections and having puppet governments. I could be wrong, but based on everything that I've heard and read about Dean so far, I don't think I am. his comments in the interview does not make me think that I'm wrong.


I'm not sure if he's saying that either, but I definitely know that's what our business leaders and politicians want. Since when have we done different to non-Western countries?

quote:
We do need to have positive relationships with other countries. I don't believe in isolation.


I don't believe in isolation either. But I also don't believe that non-isolation means that we force everyone to adopt "free market" Neoliberalism. That's what we don't seem to understand. Quite frankly, non-capitalist systems don't benefit our wealthy elite and the middle-class Americans who can afford the spoils we get from "free trade" (which inevitably means exploiting their markets since we have a larger market and more buying power and thus we can buy them out). I don't see why those in power would be willing to accept that one can be democratic and not submit to capitalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by keylargo:
but just because someone wants an open dialog and build alliances with other countries does not mean they want to control their elections. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past and may continue.


Do you honestly believe what you are saying? Do you honestly believe our government just wants to talk? sck Talk about what? Letting our market influence theirs? What is wrong with them being economically independent, pray tell?

They are open to dialogue. It's just that we don't want to talk to them. Our goverment refuses to accept anyone that is not a capitalist. Bottom line.


no, I don't believe our current government as well as our past governments have just wanted to "talk". They have been way too involved....our track record is not good and Dean recognizes the damage that has been done because of it. hopefully we will see a president that will be different.
BLOG | Posted 04/12/2006 @ 12:12am

Dean: No Dem Position on Gitmo


Ari Berman

In Time magazine this week, Joe Klein describes how John Kerry responded to the revelations of torture at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in May 2004 by holding a focus group in Arkansas. Afterwards, Klein writes, "The consultants were unanimous in their recommendations to the candidate: Don't talk about it. So Kerry didn't, "never once mentioning Abu Ghraib--or the Justice Department memo that 'broadened' accepted interrogations techniques--in his acceptance speech or, remarkably, in his three debates with Bush."

For the man who earned a following protesting atrocities in Vietnam, torture was off the table. I mention this anecdote because at a breakfast today with Howard Dean sponsored by The American Prospect, a cast member from the play Guantanamo asked Dean about the Democratic Party's position on another detention facility widely viewed as illegal under international law.

"We don't have a Democratic Party position," Dean admitted. "I've never had a discussion about it with [Harry] Reid and [Nancy] Pelosi."

That frank response surprised a number of reporters in the room. Jane Mayer, who's reported extensively on the topic for The New Yorker, followed up by asking Dean why the stunning news of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the notorious CIA black sites overseas received only a "fleeting reference" in the new Democratic national security plan.

"There are an enormous number of issues," Dean said, and he worried Democrats were already talking about too many. Dean labeled the situation in Sudan's Darfur region as "clearly genocide," for instance, "but when it comes to Democrats ability to communicate with the American people, it gets dropped."

That's too bad. Democrats often speak too much about specific issues and not enough about broad values. Nothing is more immoral than genocide and torture. Democrats should say so loudly.

(PS: I'll have more of what Dean said at the breakfast later today.)

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=76833
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
BLOG | Posted 04/12/2006 @ 12:12am

Dean: No Dem Position on Gitmo


Ari Berman

In Time magazine this week, Joe Klein describes how John Kerry responded to the revelations of torture at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in May 2004 by holding a focus group in Arkansas. Afterwards, Klein writes, "The consultants were unanimous in their recommendations to the candidate: Don't talk about it. So Kerry didn't, "never once mentioning Abu Ghraib--or the Justice Department memo that 'broadened' accepted interrogations techniques--in his acceptance speech or, remarkably, in his three debates with Bush."

For the man who earned a following protesting atrocities in Vietnam, torture was off the table. I mention this anecdote because at a breakfast today with Howard Dean sponsored by The American Prospect, a cast member from the play Guantanamo asked Dean about the Democratic Party's position on another detention facility widely viewed as illegal under international law.

"We don't have a Democratic Party position," Dean admitted. "I've never had a discussion about it with [Harry] Reid and [Nancy] Pelosi."

That frank response surprised a number of reporters in the room. Jane Mayer, who's reported extensively on the topic for The New Yorker, followed up by asking Dean why the stunning news of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the notorious CIA black sites overseas received only a "fleeting reference" in the new Democratic national security plan.

"There are an enormous number of issues," Dean said, and he worried Democrats were already talking about too many. Dean labeled the situation in Sudan's Darfur region as "clearly genocide," for instance, "but when it comes to Democrats ability to communicate with the American people, it gets dropped."

That's too bad. Democrats often speak too much about specific issues and not enough about broad values. Nothing is more immoral than genocide and torture. Democrats should say so loudly.

(PS: I'll have more of what Dean said at the breakfast later today.)

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=76833


I'm starting to wish Dean had not accepted the job as Head of the National Democratic Committee because now he has to walk on eggshells and speak on behalf of the party. He should have declined the job and put in another run for the presidency. Then, we would hear his own personal views. As of now, he has to be careful about giving his own views as opposed to the Party's view. We already know the Democrats in Washington have yet to grow a spine and speak out against anything for fear of appearing weak on national security. This continues to piss me off...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×