Little Green Footballs

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Foreign Politician Tries To Influence U.S. Election

Remember, back in October 2004, when The Guardian urged its readers to contact voters living in Clark County, Ohio and ask them to vote for Kerry?

The reaction among the right-wing élite was was swift and unanimous: Foreigners, don't meddle in U.S. politics! "Guardian Tries To Influence U.S. Election," blared Charles' headline. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13128). Said one commenter,


I find the very thought that outside forces would have a hand in the US elections...disgusting.

What right do they have? Do they live here? Why dont they just influence their own foreign policy?

Does democracy not work in their sections of the planet?

Fast-forward 28 months... and now Charles is cheering a foreign politician who is meddling in U.S. politics. But because this foreign politician chose to repeat one of Charles' favorite slanders -- that the Democratic party is secretly in cahoots with Osama bin-Laden -- why, that's just fair dinkum, mate! (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24392)

And the lizards, needless to say, are all but unanimous in their praise for outside force John Howard, who despite not living in the U.S., seems to think he has a right to have a hand in U.S. politics.

Does democracy not work in his section of the planet?

17 comments:

A1033 said...

'The Guardian' is a newspaper. It is not democratically elected and is not any sort of political organisation, therefore it has no place 'meddling in politics'. A newspaper should (neutrally and objectively) distribute information to its readership, then allow the readers to use that information to make up their own minds who to vote for. A newspaper should not attempt to influence an election by 'urging readers to contact voters and ask them to vote for _______'.

The vast majority of Coalition firepower in Iraq is the US troops. Given the current situation in Iraq there is no reason to expect that, if US forces were to withdraw before the terrorists are soundly defeated, the remaining Coalition forces would be capable of keeping Iraq out of the terrorists' control.

Obama's proposal is that the USA withdraws its troops by some set date - potentially before the defeat of the terrorists and therefore potentially giving the terrorists control of Iraq.

Iraq under terrorist control becomes a 'safe haven' for terrorists to train, equip, plan and so on - and the terrorists in the Middle East would no longer have Coalition forces in Iraq to focus their attacks on. It stands to reason that this state of affairs would result in an increase in terrorist attacks against other - in particular Western - nations around the world.

Australia is a Western nation and has already been the target of a number of terrorist attacks. It is to be expected that a Coalition loss in Iraq will result in an increase in terrorist attacks against Australia. For this reason a premature withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is a bad thing for Australia.

John Howard is the (democratically elected) Prime Minister of Australia. He is OBLIGED to speak out against any policies - including those proposed by US politicians - that will have a negative impact on Australia, such as Obama's proposal.

There is a big difference between a newspaper wrongly attempting to influence an election and a head of state speaking out against policies that would have a negative impact on his country.

There is also a big difference between a head of state speaking out against policies that would have a negative impact on his country and - as you have described it - a 'foreign politician' claiming 'that the Democratic party is secretly in cahoots with Osama-bin-laden'.

Anonymous said...

Hey a1033,

read Charles's comment:
"I find the very thought that outside forces would have a hand in the US elections...disgusting."

The key words are "outside forces". He does not distinguish between newspapers and politicians.

The point is that Charles is okay with "outside forces" interfering in elections as long as they agree with his politics.

Too bad you're too stupid to figure that out.

Go back to fighting the moonbats and dhimmis.

yodaking said...

you said->Too bad you're too stupid to figure that out.

You can't distinguish a foreign newspaper urging people to vote for a candidate in a different country versus a head of state commenting on a policy proposal by another politician from a foreign country?

Does that mean Chirac or say even former President Clinton would be inappropriate to comment on policy?

Media falls under all spectrums of political range. The Guardian purports to be neutral and objective - that my friend is the problem.

I think it is you that needs to reanalyze *your* logic.

Anonymous said...

Apparently a1033 hasn't heard of the concept of the editorial pages nor the American tradition of newspapers endorsing candidates. After asserting that newspapers should not urge voters to vote for or against a particular politician, one has to wonder if a1033 has ever bothered to read a newspaper.

a1033 said...

It may be standard procedure in the US for newspapers to endorse specifc candidates, but the Guardian is a UK - not US - newspaper which was not endorsing a specific candidate (in the editorial pages or otherwise) so much as it was wrongfully attempting to influence the outcome of the election.

By urging and enabling its readers to contact the neutral or independent 'impressionable' voters and ask them to vote for Kerry, the Guardian was in effect attempting to replace the votes of US citizens with the votes of (UK) Guardian readers - openly disregarding US sovereignty.
The Guardian also provided its readers with information and tips on how to effectively bypass certain US laws - specifically those forbidding foreign donations to the presidential campaigns.

This is clearly a case of a non-US entity interfering in the election and is what is being referred to in the comment (which is not Charles') as 'outside forces having a hand in the election'. Everyone should be disgusted by the actions of the Guardian.

For contrast, PM Howard expressed his opinion (as he was obliged to do) that Obama's proposal would have negative consequences for the War on Terror and Australia and as such was something the terrorists would hope to see come into effect. PM Howard has expressed the same opinion in the past and would express it no matter who put forward the proposal.


The point of the article - that Charles approves or disapproves of foreign influence over US elections depending on whether he agrees with the politics - is valid only if the attempts of the two foreign parties to influence the election are comparable.

To believe that the point of the article is valid, you must argue that the Guardian's attempt to replace US votes with Guardian votes and financially support the Democrat side is equivalent to PM Howard expressing his opinion.
I do not believe these actions to be equivalent.

yodaking said...

You said->The key words are "outside forces". He does not distinguish between newspapers and politicians.

I've never seen Charles say that when Ajhmidinjad calls us the great satan - that he is trying to effect policy.

You must understand that there is a difference between a head of state and a (supposedly) non-biased newspaper. Not to mention Howard simply disagreed with Obama's policies, he did not (as the Guardian did) out right say don't vote for him.

you said->Too bad you're too stupid to figure that out.

the irony...

Apparently a1033 hasn't heard of the concept of the editorial pages nor the American tradition of newspapers endorsing candidates. After asserting that newspapers should not urge voters to vote for or against a particular politician, one has to wonder if a1033 has ever bothered to read a newspaper.

Of course newspapers are allowed to post their opinion in the editorial page, but posting opinion versus trying to have non us citizens influence the election is another.

I hope you two do understand the contrast?

cokane said...

"he did not (as the Guardian did) out right say don't vote for him."

Right, he merely said the terrorists want him to win. That's not endorsing anyone for sure.

The fact that Howard is a head of state for an ally makes it even MORE objectionable. Imagine if Chirac said "Don't vote for bush" in 2004. He never did, as that would be ridiculous.

Imagine if Bush said "Don't vote for Royal" or "Don't vote for Maliki". It'd be fucking ridiculous, heads of state should not stoop to the level of saying "don't vote for X" when X is a perfectly viable candidate. It's rude and outrageous. And yes, liztards, saying "that's the candidate al-qaeda is cheering for" IS like saying "don't vote for him". Only in a way it's worse and ignorant (AQ's sunnis are toast in Iraq if the US leaves).

yodaking said...

Right, he merely said the terrorists want him to win. That's not endorsing anyone for sure.

Cokane, read your post - gave it some thought and realized that even if a head of state endorses a particular candidate of another country - that is still fine and completely consistent with one of our most cherished values....Freedom of speech.

In fact it happens all the time right now and in the past.

Most recently Cheney going to Australia to support Howard for upcomming elections, our support for Merkel, anti-Castro, anti-Chavez comments. I don't even need to go into the number of negative comments about our adminstration (most recently by Putin)

THE KEY to this post is, comments ARE NOT same as (as the guardian tells readers to do) proactively taking steps to change the election like giving money.

Here is evidence:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1326033,00.html

One of the things the Guardian suggests is to circumvent the law that prevents foreign nationals to donate to a political party....(remember Clinton and the Lincoln bedroom?)

The fact that Howard is a head of state for an ally makes it even MORE objectionable. Imagine if Chirac said "Don't vote for bush" in 2004. He never did, as that would be ridiculous.

Heads of state make comments and endorse certain candidates all the time. Most recently support for the conservative candidates in Germany and Canada. Public endorsement is not the same as funneling money or trying to effect the election directly (as the guardian suggests)

You do understand the distinction with speaking your mind versus trying to funnel money into an election?

Imagine if Bush said "Don't vote for Royal" or "Don't vote for Maliki". It'd be fucking ridiculous, heads of state should not stoop to the level of saying "don't vote for X" when X is a perfectly viable candidate. It's rude and outrageous.

Oh, you mean like when Rice said that "Chavez was negative force for the region?"

http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2007/01/21/venezuelas_chavez_says_gringos_go_to_hell/

Maybe are you communist that beleives Chavez is a freedom fighter for the poor?

Or maybe you want to censor free speech? I guess voicing your opinion is the same as trying to directly effect an election by actually meddling in the election process with money and resources like the Guardian suggests?

And yes, liztards, saying "that's the candidate al-qaeda is cheering for" IS like saying "don't vote for him". Only in a way it's worse and ignorant (AQ's sunnis are toast in Iraq if the US leaves).

Actually, having U.S. forces leave Iraq is exactly what the insurgents want. What Howard said is actually true sadly.

cokane said...

"Actually, having U.S. forces leave Iraq is exactly what the insurgents want. What Howard said is actually true sadly."

I want to put this up as evidence that Charles' LGF had done nothing to educate its viewers about Islam.

There isn't just "insurgents" in Iraq. Mainly the sunnis and the shi'ites are fighting each other. The sunnis are vastly outnumbered. Al-Qaeda is entirely sunni.

If the US leaves Iraq, the worst case scenario is ethnic cleansing. It will be the shi'ites cleaning out the Sunnis, i.e. Al-Qaeda

Your ignorance is appalling. Time to go back to discussing star wars, and leave the real thinking to the adults.

unaha-closp said...

If the US leaves Iraq, the worst case scenario is ethnic cleansing. It will be the shi'ites cleaning out the Sunnis, i.e. Al-Qaeda

Except that Al Qaeda (armed Sunni group with thousands of fanatical fighters - maybe you've heard of them) will fight back. Be more correct say it may be the Shia cleaning out the Sunni or vice versa. Especially since Saudis have pretty much gauranteed support to Sunni Iraqis in the event of full blown conflict.

Probably fair to say that both Al Qaeda/Sunni and Shia insurgents want the Americans to leave, because both sides think it will be them winning the ensuing fight.

Anonymous said...

So if the Leader of the French Socialist Party wants to say that voting for Bush or the Republicans would be a threat to mankind, then you would be okay with that?

yodaking said...

Your ignorance is appalling. Time to go back to discussing star wars, and leave the real thinking to the adults.

oh...right....Al Quida and insurgents want America to stay in America as long as possible...why didn't I see that!? Of course what terrorists want is America to stay in Iraq to stabalize it!! I'm such a fool!

I want to put this up as evidence that Charles' LGF had done nothing to educate its viewers about Islam.

Please do, I'm perfectly happy with your thesis that it is false When Howard said terrorists DON'T want America to stay in Iraq and stabalize it

There isn't just "insurgents" in Iraq. Mainly the sunnis and the shi'ites are fighting each other

True.

The sunnis are vastly outnumbered. Al-Qaeda is entirely sunni.

Again True.

However, you miss the MAJOR POINT that Al-Qaeda is not the ONLY terrorist organization in Iraq. There are also Shia that seek to establish a Theocracy (ala Taliban/Iran)

If the US leaves Iraq, the worst case scenario is ethnic cleansing. It will be the shi'ites cleaning out the Sunnis, i.e. Al-Qaeda

That's just part of the worst case scenario, you're forgetting the part where a theocracy could possibly be set up, possibly allied with Iran and we have yet another breeding ground for "religion of peace"(tm) bombers.

cokane said...

howard said al-qaeda; he did not say terrrorists in general. Go back to rewatching episode I please

yodaking said...

You said->howard said al-qaeda; he did not say terrrorists in general.

Yes.....and terrorists want the US to fail in Iraq and leave....what exactly about this point do you not understand?

Go back to rewatching episode I please.

Oh the irony.

yodaking said...

howard said al-qaeda; he did not say terrrorists in general.

So Al-Qaeda are not terrorists?

haha

Go back to rewatching episode I please

What does star wars have to do with Al-Qaeda?

cokane said...

yoda king, you do realize Al-Qaeda is in Iraq specifically because it gives them the opportunity to kill American soldiers? AQ wants the USA to stay in Iraq for as long as possible. Maybe you should do some research on what Bin Laden had said about his strategy?

http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=inthenews5904&Category=inthenews&Subcategory=0

See? Osama wants the US to be entangled in as many foreign states as possible to bleed its economy.

Perhaps you should do some history on how Al-Qaeda operates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Be sure to check the "bosnia" section. Al-Qaeda loves to go into battle zones and turn the tide, that's actually their major MO. Of course, being a fan of a "Islamic terrorism watch" site, you should be informed of all this right?

Please spare me the intellectual dishonesty of your last posts. I'm not going to debate with you if you continue this kind of pointless sophistry. Saying that the Shiites will ally with Iran is no way to defend Howard's assertion that AQ wants the US to leave Iraq. AQ DOES NOT want the US to leave. I never said AQ was not terrorists. I said Howard did not say "terrorists" he said AQ.

But any objective observe can see from your posts that LGF has failed to educate its readers on the true nature of Islamic terrorism.

yodaking said...

Maybe you should do some research on what Bin Laden had said about his strategy?

http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=inthenews5904&Category=inthenews&Subcategory=0


cocane, yes I know this is his goal, but did you not read the whole thing? He wants to replicate what happened to the Russians....his strategy only works if we cannot decisively defeat the terrorists and leave (as in Afghanistan) it doesn't work say like when we ousted the Taliban...you think Al Quida thinks that we have ousted the taliban and forced him into hiding is a good thing?

See? Osama wants the US to be entangled in as many foreign states as possible to bleed its economy.

And this only works if we fail our effort in confronting terrorists. Is this want you want? For the US to lose, give up and ignore radical Islam? I mean if you think this is the best course of action, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise - I rather have clarity then agreement.

Be sure to check the "bosnia" section. Al-Qaeda loves to go into battle zones and turn the tide, that's actually their major MO. Of course, being a fan of a "Islamic terrorism watch" site, you should be informed of all this right?

LOL, did you not read the whole thing?

"While their bravery in the fray initially attracted a small number of native Bosnians to join them, their brutality against civilians[37] came to appall many native Bosnians and repel new recruits. At the same time, their vigorous attempts to Islamicize the local population with rules on appropriate dress and behavior were widely resented and thus went unheeded. In his book Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe: the Afghan-Bosnian Network, Evan Kohlmann summarizes: "In spite of vigorous efforts to ‘Islamicise’ the nominally Muslim Bosnian populace, the locals could not be convinced to abandon pork, alcohol, or public displays of affection. Bosnian women persistently refused to wear the hijab or follow the other mandates for female behavior prescribed by extreme fundamentalist Islam."

Osama turned off the Bosnians...

Cokane, again - easy on the white powder.

Please spare me the intellectual dishonesty of your last posts. I'm not going to debate with you if you continue this kind of pointless sophistry.

intellectual dishonesty? How so? What lie or trickery have I engaged in?

Saying that the Shiites will ally with Iran is no way to defend Howard's assertion that AQ wants the US to leave Iraq.

Please re-read this thread, this response was not about Howard, this response was to you when you posed a "worse case scenario" (sigh)

AQ DOES NOT want the US to leave.

If they don't, then why were they happy when the Russian's left Afghanistan? They want us to stay and lose (then leave) That is a more accurate MO

I never said AQ was not terrorists. I said Howard did not say "terrorists" he said AQ.

...Again, AQ are not terrorists?

But any objective observe can see from your posts that LGF has failed to educate its readers on the true nature of Islamic terrorism.

The irony