SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

Bush invites foreigners to monitor US election
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39861

Absolutely mind boggling.

From 1926 to 1933 the navy was never successful in defeating the insurgency in Nicaragua led by the bandit / despot / murderer Augusto Sandino, which it had never been tasked to do.

Insurgencies are probably the toughest form of warfare to defeat, even one the size of Sandino's. But the US and the navy with the efforts of the Marines were successful in ensuring that the two national elections during that period were free and fair, which the navy, especially the leathernecks and bluejackets in country had been tasked to do.

Now a U.S. President who wants to use the U.S. Armed Forces to 'bring democracy to the world' makes a formal request to the United Nations for American elections to be monitored by foreigners . . . I imagine that the rationalization of the Bush supporters will be that 'we have nothing to hide' or something along those lines. . . But this is something else and not at all a good precedent. One more attack on our nation's sovereignty by the new pseudo-left Republicans. And on the basis of the 2000 Florida election court challenges filed by Al Gore. . .

Maybe the wrong candidate won in 2000.

Personally, I don't believe that Al Gore would have been nearly as successful at getting so much for the left as President Bush has:

Lip service support of being pro-life without much of anything by way of concrete action, lip service opposition to perversion without concrete opposition,

Institutionalizing Clinton-era policies of using our armed forces as the world's policemen,

Overwhelming increase of our national debt through the outrageous debt on social programs spending, and whining when any of it is only trimmed, increase of socialized health care through the prescription drugs act, the shifting of education as a local responsibility to the federal government for the first time in our nation's history (so much for the Republican "contract with America), federal funding for infant stem cell research (so much for President Bush's pre-election complete “pro-life” opposition to infant stem cell research) for the first time, amnesty for illegal immigrants under the "guise" of national security and the so-called GWAT and a 'job corps' system for foreign nationals, further opening of this hemisphere to further erode U.S. sovereignty in trade and facilitate the loss of American industry and service companies to the south from when they’ll head to Asia as they have been for years already, American sovereignty given over to the WTO in Europe and the transfer of constitutional responsibilities of the Fast Track' from the congress to the Executive in the western Pacific further undercutting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing further foreign entanglements, . . .

An absurd “Global War Against” a mere tactic that’s led to a “war of liberation” in which the post-invasion reconstruction phase was miserably planned and executed under the initial ‘leadership’ of an inept Clinton-political appointee, all leading to the present debacle in Iraq where destabilization of the government has led to the formation of an increasingly growing foreign insurgent terrorist campaign and what appears to be increasingly growing indigenous insurgencies, all failed to be adequately demonstrated as constituting a central effort against the Para-military organizations which have waged their terrorist attacks against us and that the majority of our citizens do not want to provide concrete support for in men and materiel, not even those claiming to "support our troops", and given this President's blustering slogan of "with us or against us" and rhetoric about an 'axis of evil' together with this Administrations kow towing to the People's Republic of China and 'efforts' with North Korea (where there’s no question about “WMD”), does that mean that the United States is now against itself???

Was Saddam Hussein a corrupt and brutal leader? Hell yes. However, next to the present-day leaders of such as the new Republic of Russia or the People’s Republic of China, or next to 3rd world nations more in Iraq’s league, such as Pol Pot and Cambodia and Edi Amin in the ‘70s or even Rwanda in the ‘90s, then in comparison brutality and atrocity wise, Hussein isn’t a pimple on the ass of a bug. There are plenty more examples as well.

The institutionalization of the post-93 Clintonite armed forces that created a small 'army' inside an otherwise huge 'job corps' of 2nd rate soldiers sailors and airmen 'trained' in low standard coed boot camps that is more concerned with social engineering policies than defense, the outsourcing for our military, equipment, parts and capabilities along with personnel replaced by mercenaries, US air forces, air force and naval aviation, defeated overwhelming in exercises with the Israeli air force (which hasn’t seen serious air combat since the ‘80s) in 2000 and the Indian air force in 2004, .

And now the man who proposes to lead his messianic campaign of bringing ‘God-given’ Democracy to the world invites the U.N. to monitor American elections. . .

Did someone on this forum actually refer to George Bush as a "truly great president????"

Please, enough is enough. George Bush has proven to be Nothing but a 21st century Republican version of 1970s Jimmy Carter.

This bumbling president and his pseudo-Marxist neo-con advisors are ruining this nation. With it coming down to this election being won by either President Bush or Senator Kerry (who would inherit all of the bad precedents set and institutionalized under George Bush) then this is nothing but a lose-lose election year for this nation.
_________________
Paul

[silenthunter]

Hey, Paul--

When I first saw the header on your topic I thought you were nuts. I've followed this story for several weeks and this is a total, beer-cracking stunner.

I remember reading about this for the first time maybe a month ago, as I recall, on LaptopLobbyist.com. I thought, "Not in my lifetime." So, maybe I should up my life insurance now, huh?

What a cowardly, brain-dead thing to do. A shot in the back. Not bright. Bad move. So much for any leads in the polls that Bush may have gotten coming out of the DNC orchestral love-fest. This is just amazing.

I wonder if Cheney's B-slappin' that runt??! Guy! The choice is still pretty clear to me, but it really sucks! He may have just thrown the election, close as it is.

Constitution Party 2008!

I don't know what to say. AND I'm out of Coronas. At least I can do something about that!

!
_________________
R.E. Gleason, YN2
Navy '67-'71
Staff, Rear Admiral James D. Ramage,
COMCARDIV7, '70-'71
USS Oriskany, CVA34, '69-'71

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson

[LewWaters]

Only the headline of this thread and the article say "MONITOR."

Foreigners are invited to "OBSERVE." They are not the same thing.

Edited to add: From the article, we read;

[silenthunter]

Sorry, Lew, you're absolutely right.

The Poodle is the topic here.
_________________
R.E. Gleason, YN2
Navy '67-'71
Staff, Rear Admiral James D. Ramage,
COMCARDIV7, '70-'71
USS Oriskany, CVA34, '69-'71

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Paul]

Hi STH:

I agree with you. It is a stunner.

This is not a minor issue.

If the intention is to have UN observers “observe” every polling place in this nation (and will that include “observing” at such as supermarkets and malls and such in states like here in Texas that allow voting as early as October? And will they also monitor the absentee ballets somehow?), then given the size of this nation, this will be a HUGE undertaking and a quite a Spectacle. The international media will have a Field Day with this. A spectacle, mind you, that the United States will probably be required to foot quite substantial bill for as well. . .

And what exactly is the point or the reason? What are they going to monitor? Will anyone even ask for particular reasons?

Truth to tell, and for the reasons of what I’ve listed above and more, including this administration backing off from the position that the next-to-useless (except as an extremely expensive precedent-setting internationalist bureaucracy) International Criminal Court having no jurisdiction over U.S. servicemen in the UN Security Council earlier this year, then personally I’m no longer surprised at anything from this President, not even this.

And don't look for Senator Kerry to raise any objections to any of this nonsense either.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Hi LW:

That what may be implemented will done via an internationalist agreement established under the presidency of Bush Sr. in 1990, on the basis of the Gore electoral challenge in 2000, by Bush Jr. in 2004 doesn’t detract from anything. It only underscores why it's important to find out just why something this huge and precedent-setting is being approved?

As to quibbling about “monitor” versus “observe”, then the example of Second Nicaragua still holds. Marines, sailors and the Marines-established Guardia fought back the Mexican-backed insurgency and provided security during the elections. In addition, on the days of the National Elections in Nicaragua additional detachments of men were brought in from Panama and off U.S. warships to serve as observers at polling places as well.

They were observing the new Nicaraguan electoral procedures established with U.S. assistance at the time.

What exactly will the U.N. observers be observing in the U.S. in November? How exactly will these people “prevent” what occurred in 2000 as the Congresswoman from Texas claims? Or, what exactly is the purpose of this?

Who’s going to ask these questions? Anyone?

If this goes through, even for only these ambiguous reasons, then forget quibbling and hair-splitting definitions between “monitor” and “observe” this November where the precedent that this will set is concerned.

Although, given that when such as these are implemented with the ‘cheerleaders’ downplaying the meanings of terms at the time, only to have the terms argued over later and manipulated so as to implement further programs, then post-November quibbling over terms is an important consideration and reason to demand more than idiotic-sounding sloganeering by way of explanation for the purpose of this? It should be demanded that President Bush provide a more substantial explanation of this than he's been giving us for other programs over the past four years where he's sounded like a high school boy called on in class to answer a question on a topic that he hadn't adequately studied for. Too much is getting through too easily this way.

Mention of the meaning of terms and how they may be used in the future isn’t a minor point. There’s no reason to doubt more won't be built on this bad precedent in the future or that this isn't only the beginning.

It’s all about the “Poodle”? Well, there’s more one “Poodle” in this Presidential Campaign. It looks like one will either continue or the other "inherit" the bad precedents.

As to the Democrat’s, then Senator Kerry is a member of the congressional branch of the U.S. Government who has consistently voted in support of everything that I’ve listed above or participated in the formation of the bills impacting all of the above that have then been approved by President Bush after being sent to him by our Congress. This President has vetoed no major spending bills since becoming President. And the same goes for Senator Kerry’s in Iraq.

As to Kerry’s nonsensical quibbling about essentially nothing more substantial than the interpretation of 2002 intelligence data, then it’s no more relevant to the situation at the moment than his statements questioning Secretary of Defense McNamara’s policies in 1971, fully 3 years after McNamara ceased to be Secretary of Defense and after U.S. policy in Vietnam changed formally and dramatically in late ‘69. Senator Kerry is a member of our government who voted in favor of the new “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” by which our Congress gave our Executive the authorization for everything it has followed through on since.

None of these will be issues for Senator Kerry in his campaign, except the distorted, false, and frankly absurd, claims that this President is responsible for “slashing” social spending. It’s very doubtful that this matter of the U.N. monitoring U.S. elections which Senator Kerry’s Democratic cohorts in the Congress have requested of, and appears is being approved by, the Bush Administration will be an issue for him either. Senator Kerry and President Bush are “two peas in a pod” where these issues are concerned.

Add all of the above together with these new precedents being established by this President and whatever is built upon it all, then what a ‘mix’ for the re-forming of the United States even ten years down the road. There will be consequences to all of this.

Anyway, I’ll tell you what,

If this monitoring of U.S. elections goes through and there are any U.N. observers here in Texas when I vote, then when they “observe” me voting, they won’t observe me voting for either the Republican’s “Poodle,” President Bush, or for the Democrat’s “Poodle,” Senator Kerry, whose formal votes as a U.S. Senator have consistently supported everything this President has so disastrously implemented on Trade, Social spending bills and also the so-called GWAT.
_________________
Paul

[LewWaters]

Did it ever occur that the Administration has agreed to observers to show them how to do it? That, Paul, is the difference between "monitor" and "observer."

The Democrats requested UN monitoring in an obvious attempt to discredit the 2000 election. According to the article presented, it isn't the UN being invited in, but several European nations to observe.

Also within the article; "However, state election authorities in Florida have already announced that such observers are not to be allowed access to the voting process and, in any case, they would have to remain at a distance of more than 50 feet from the polls."

If you read the article you posted, Bush is only mentioned in the headline, nowhere within the article. Sort of misleading, yes?

Last I looked, this is only being reported at World Net Daily. None of the reputable or mainstream news media have ran with it yet. I find that curious as well.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[Paul]

Hi LW:

“Last I looked, this is only being reported at World Net Daily. None of the reputable or mainstream news media have ran with it yet. I find that curious as well.”

The last I looked complaints about what is not reported or what is under reported in the media abound on this very forum. WND is often the first to cover something not being covered by SBVFT.

Neither have I seen anyone from this administration clearly and plainly denying this report as bogus yet. Honestly, I hope that I do, and shortly.

It’s a fair question you raise, and this does need to be confirmed, but what precisely do you find “curious” about this? That’s a “curious” phrasing and response to this report in it itself.

For all I know, the article is only a tickler to gauge the response. WND even has a poll on the reaction to the question for goodness sake. Frankly, I would find even only a “tickler” to be highly annoying.

I don’t argue this doesn’t need to be confirmed and more precise details learned about it. In fact, just the opposite. I point out that much more needs to be learned precisely about the details.

The request for UN observers made in July by the Congressmen, only about four months prior to the elections, was absurdly late if one is serious about what these congressmen were requesting. Realistically, I don’t expect to see observers at every polling place either in the US or even in Florida in November.

However, any kind of election monitoring or observers as a result of these requests and claiming to be based on a UN initiative from 1990 that us average citizens probably didn’t even know existed needs to be questioned.

The first would be what exactly are the details of this 1990 UN agreement that the US and other European countries are part of, why would observers be present at our elections? What is their purpose? How is what is whatever is organized going to meet that purpose?
_________________
Paul

[Markedman]

I wasn't sure I had read the story right. How is it possible that these congressional traitors have not been thoroughly trounced in the well of the house - and then tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail! what ever happened to "Don't Tread on Me!"? Or what about their oaths to support, protect and defend The Consitution from all enemies foreign or "domestic"?

Scotty

[Paul]

Hi LW:

"Did it ever occur that the Administration has agreed to observers to show them how to do it? That, Paul, is the difference between "monitor" and 'observer.' " {LW}

First. What’s most important is that it should occur to someone to ask what is meant before trying to rationalize only what may be meant. This rationalization is a a poor spin on "observe" versus "monitor” in the context of either these articles or past history of the role of observers in election monitoring. There's nothing in any of what's been reported on this since July to give any credence to this whatsoever, even as a question.

This articl reports that the democratic congressmen made the same request to the Bush Administration that had made to the UN and that the administration gave approval. Nowhere in this article or any that have preceded it since July is there there even a hit that any of this would be for "educational" purposes.

The quote of the congresswoman from Texas is:

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," Johnson said in the letter. "This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself."

As to the difference in meaning, then nonsense. Give one example of the many national elections of any country monitored by a third party for reasons such as this given by the congressmen where the observers at the polls were there to "learn" how to do something?

Back to Nicarauga 1928, the detachments of sailors and Marines brought in during the national elections to serve as observers was for the purpose of observing whether or not the new electoral process had been implemented and followed properly or not. They were there to "learn" nothing by way of the electoral process itself.

“According to the article presented, it isn't the UN being invited in, but several European nations to observe.” {LW}

Please. This is nonsensecal hair-splitting. The request is made to the UN. If the UN coordinates and is responsible for the effort, then the observers being Europeans is irrelevant. Just as American servicemen have constituted the lion’s share of so-called UN “peacekeeping” missions in the last 15 years. That doesn't change the fact that American servicemen have steadily served under UN initiatives and programs.

“Also within the article; ‘However, state election authorities in Florida have already announced that such observers are not to be allowed access to the voting process and, in any case, they would have to remain at a distance of more than 50 feet from the polls.’ " {LW}

This is a matter of state laws that may conflict with foreign observers if they come in depending upon if observers come in to monitor US elections and the details of such an effort. This would be a detail to be worked out.

Hey, the US Congress in recent year has modified US trade laws due to the WTO, which I'll gladly list in detail if you like. So quoting an existing state law is irrelevant to the central questions here.

“If you read the article you posted, Bush is only mentioned in the headline, nowhere within the article. Sort of misleading, yes?” {LW}

No, not misleading at all. He’s the President of the United States and head of this administration that the article reports that the request of requesting election monitoring by the UN was made to and approved by because the UN pointed out that it requires the request be formally made by the US government and not individuals. President Bush has final accountability for the actions of his administration and this is a common and valid form of expression.

There are questions that need to be asked. These are not very useful ones.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"WND is often the first to cover something not being covered by SBVFT"

Not being covered about SBVFT by the rest of the media is what was intended. I apologize for my poor wording above.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"I wasn't sure I had read the story right. How is it possible . . . "

I agree Markedman. Why wasn't a clear response to the request of the Democratic Congressmen made in July (way late in the process I'll add for such a request to be made) by either the Administration or by members of our Congress?

In their request, these congressmen, including the congresswoman from Texas speaking for them, are presenting the United States of America as being equivalent to a third-world country in civil chaos on the basis of nothing more substantial than the aftermath of the 2000 elections. There's no chaos. The matter was dealt with. The only complaint is by those who didn't like the results of who won.

And more questions. How will observers avoid a repeat of 2000 in the event of a close election somewhere as the congressmen are claiming? I can easily imagine a repeat, but only after a bunch of observers stood watching. . . This would only be a bad precedent to set for our nation, even if only one district allowed in observers for these reasons.

There's no shame for Nicaragua that it requested our intervention and assistance in 1926 given the situation. Sometimes help from another nation is needed. For the United States, this is not one of those situations.

The United States of America at the moment is not a Banana Republic in civil turmoil or chaos in need of outside assistance.

The very implication that such monitoring by an effort under the UN implies a need for international oversight and is directly in contradiction of self-determination and self-governance.

Even when the Nicaraguan government formally requested that the US navy stay in 1932, the US response was that we would not remain indefinitely and the US withdrew fully in 1933. The situation was stable enough for the Nicaraguans to take over and govern themselves once again.

This request is nonsense and essentially a denial of self-governance.
Frankly, I'd like to know the details of the 1990 UN agreement referenced here that we supposedly signed onto under the Bush Administration. From the description, it sounds like a very bad precedent itself.
_________________
Paul

[dmroyer]

Paul, with all of your knowledge, it seems you know a little to much, and a lot of canned democratic party lines, and are trying to get us off the topic which is the ability of John Kerry to be Commander in Chief.
_________________
David K. Royer

[Theresa Alwood]

Paul

It is my understanding that it was actually the State Department who asked for the "observers" only after the DNC party made a request but also forced a vote. I know I had the numbers written down and posted this is an earlier post as to the number of democrats who voted for the UN to actually monitor our elections. I believe the only reason President Bush is allowing this is because of the fiasco Gore caused. Even after the 5 independent studies there are people who actually STILL believe that Gore won the election and won Florida. I paid close attention to those absentee ballot votes...as mine was one of their military votes Mr. Gore was trying to get thrown out! I do not agree with the UN (as corrupt as they are) or any other group monitoring our elections. After all it will only take one in the group to make another election sound as if it is rigged...even though it was the DNC who actually tried to steal the election.

Sometimes we just have to have faith that everything will work out for the best.
_________________
Born to raise a little hell!

[LewWaters]

Still, the main point being missed is that the OSCE isn't the UN, as requested by the Dems. This is also being done under an agreement signed back in 1990.

The Dems made a show of this to make it appear as if we need UN supervision to ensure fair elections. However, maybe they would have stepped in and stopped the Dems efforts to disqualify thousands of absentee military ballots, while preaching "every vote must be counted."
_________________
Clark County Conservative