Terrorists and the Presidential Campaign

I’ve been hearing a number of things said over the last two days over comments made by Joe Biden about the possibility of a created crisis to test a future President Obama. The McCain Campaign jumped all over this statement, saying the following:

Joe Biden guaranteed a generated international crisis if Barack Obama is elected, and a smile-for-the-cameras press conference isn’t going to mitigate the risk of an Obama presidency.

All presidencies have risks. I think the economy is a bigger concern than terrorism, but terrorism is a major issue, not to be sneezed at. So let’s have a look at what Al-Qaeda has done over the last several years to affect the outcome of elections in two instances.

On October 29th of 2004, a scant 3 days prior to the U.S. Presidential election, Osama Bin-Laden put out a Videotape, warning of plans of future attacks on American targets. There are those who think that this helped tip the scales in that election away from John Kerry and towards George Bush, a man who very much defined himself as THE anti-terror candidate.

The train Bombings in Spain, that killed 191 people and wounded 1,755 people in 2004, happened a scant 3 days prior to their election. Jose Maria Aznar had sent troops to Iraq, several thousand in fact. He lost his election bid.

Al-Qaeda has already said that they like John McCain, and are willing to attack America to influence the election.

Now, do I think they will? Of course not. I’m not sure they’re strong enough, and anything that Al-Qaeda says here has to be looked at as a subterfuge, meant to confuse and harass their enemies, us. For us to believe anything they say, would take extreme paranoia on our part and is simply ludicrous. We really do need to be a bit more stout of heart than that. I think the statements they are putting out now are the extent of what they do. And I don’t know about you, but I for one will not change how I’ll vote based on what a terrorist does or says. I’m not a coward like that, and I’m fairly sure that most Americans would join me there.

Mind you, they like the Republicans it seems, and it’s not surprising. The Republican president has been an excellent recruiting tool for the terrorist network, and they are, I think, loath to lose that tool, and will do what they can to keep that tool, a pro-war Republican President, at their disposal. Killing is their business, and business is good as far as they see it. Just for a counterpoint to this, Hezbollah at one point actually endorsed Barack Obama, but backed out of that endorsement after he made several pro-Israeli statements. Guess that whole “Hussein” middle name thing the Republicans keep harping on doesn’t get that much play in the lands where that name is more common than the name smith.

Al-Qaeda is simply playing the propaganda game at this point, and I think they will keep doing just that. They know how jumpy Americans are. They don’t have to bomb us to affect us. They used words in the 2004 Presidential election to good effect. I think Joe Biden learned a lesson, but is simply applying it improperly. It isn’t about testing the President, Joe, It’s about getting the guy they want in office so they get what they want. And what is it that they want?

WAR WITHOUT END.

That’s my two cents. Disagree? Want to talk about terrorism and politics and how one affects the other? Drop me a line!

Uncle Mikey

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

This is a rather lengthy continuation of yesterday’s analysis of the last friday’s debate, this post focusing on questions 4 through 6 of Friday’s debate.

Question Four: Much has been said of the lessons of Vietnam. What are the Lessons Of Iraq?

John McCain speaks first. He says the lessons are very clear. Those lessons are that you cannot have a failed strategy that very nearly causes you to lose a conflict. He spoke of early success followed by things being “badly mishandled”. He said in 2003 he went to Iraq, saw the issues and said something has to be done, we need more troops, and he fought to get them, and finally he got them and a great general, and that led to success. He called Iraq a stable ally. he spoke of the consequences of defeat

Barack Obama then spoke. He spoke of opposing the war when it was politically risky to do so. He said that it was bad because Osama Bin Laden was still out there and Afghanistan wasn’t done, Al-Qaeda hadn’t been put to rest, and that Iraq would be a distraction in the war on terror. He said we took our eye off of the ball, that we’ve spent over $600,000,000,000 and that number was well on the way to being one trillion dollars, and the cost both in money and men was too high, and has given Al-Qaeda strength.

It was here that John McCain made perhaps his strongest point of the night, making the case that the past is gone and that the next President will have to: decide when we leave how we leave and what we leave behind

A clear and simple statement of objective, well worded, well spoken.

There was a fair bit of back and forth after that point. McCain making the point that Obama said the surge wouldn’t work and then had succeeded beyond all expectations. McCain making the point that Barack has never had a meeting on Afghanistan. Barack Countering with that is done as “committee of the whole” and isn’t handled by his subcommittee, something McCain well knew. Barack then tossing out there the simple fact that John McCain acts like the war started in 2007. Then Obama hit Sen. McCain with perhaps his strongest counter of the night. Calling McCain wrong about the Iraq war being easy, that He was wrong about Americans being greeted as liberators, and about there being no history of violence between Shi’ite and Sunni, questioning his basic, fundamental judgment on foreign affairs.

That may have been the strongest shot of the night.

There was talk of Sen. McCain talking to troops who had just re-upped for another tour asking him to “let them win”. There was a question of troop funding brought up by senator McCain that was a question of a bill with and without a timetable. Each one voting against it once. There was the charge that Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq, a Charge that Sen. Obama vehemently denied. There was the charge that Sen McCain toss out that Admiral Mullen said that Barack Obama’s Iraq plan was dangerous, a charge he again denied, filling in the blanks on the admirals statement.

Question five: Do we need more troops In Afghanistan?

Barack Obama answers first. Yes, and he’s been saying it for awhile. The situation in Afghanistan is getting worse and Al-Qaeda is becoming emboldened and are on the offensive, attacking from within Pakistan. He quotes Secretary of Defense Gates, that Pakistan and Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror. Continues with the point that Iraq is a strategic mistake in the war on terror. He has a three point plan for Afghanistan. Make sure that President Karzai is working for his people. Stop the Drug trade that is funneling money to Al-Qaeda. Deal with Pakistan.

John McCain counters with it was America that started the entire ball rolling here, by giving arms to the Afghans in the 70’s to defeat soviet Russia, and then walking away. All the terrorist problems we face, we face because of that mistake. Chided Barack for being naive about saying bombing Pakistan. Not about the actual bombing, but saying in public that he would. Mentioned that he had been to the nation several times, implying it gives him special knowledge of the situation.

At this point Barack made clear his point about Bombing Pakistan, saying that if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to help and there is knowledge that Bin Laden or one of his Top guys is there, you hit’em. That’s the right strategy. McCain does not counter this point. The truth can’t be countered here. Obama chided McCain for threatening North Korea with extinction and his signing of “Bomb Iran” to the Beach boys song “Barbara Ann”, which in turn led to McCain stating his long experience in foreign affairs, without actually saying anything about what Barack Obama had just said.

For all of his lengthy experience, this answer came off as inadequate, because it did not answer the main point, that McCain is a loose cannon, an accident waiting to happen. There was an exchange of “Bracelet for a dead soldier” stories, and that concluded question 5.

Question Six. What is your reading on the Threat Iran poses the United States?

McCain answers first. A nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel. He spoke of a second holocaust. He spoke of a “league of democracies”, mentioned the Russian are blocking significant actions in the U.N. Security counsel, and then again mentioned the league that would impose “painful” sanctions on Iran. Said the Iranians had a lousy government, and their economy was lousy as a result. (ahem) He is convinced that America, along with Germany, France and Great Britain, can “afect Iranian behavior”, and reiterated Iran was a serious threat. Also mentioned that Barack Obama thought it was “provocative” to declare the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist threat.

Sen. Obama started by saying he does think The Rep. Guard is a terrorists organization, but says what Sen. McCain talked about was a mandate inside Iraq, which would have inflamed tensions between the two nations. Mentioned that the one thing that has strengthened Iran was the loss of Iraq as an enemy. When we invaded Iraq, we made Iran stronger by taking away their mortal enemy. He spoke not tolerating a nuclear Iran, and using sanctions, but getting the cooperation of Iran’s allies, China and Russia to assist us in this. Mentioned that “this notion, by not talking to people, we are punishing them” hasn’t worked.

This was perhaps the sharpest exchange of the night on this question. It had two main points. One Sen. McCain saying that Sen. Obama is naive to think that meeting our enemies without preconditions is dangerous. Obama countering that without Preconditions does not mean without preparations. This went back and forth several times. Barack Pointed out that because of this administrations policy of not meeting without preconditions had made North Korea Immeasurably stronger. John Chided him and asked him incredulously if Ahmedinejad says we’ll wipe Israel off of the map, what’re you gonna do, just say No we aren’t? It was pretty funny.

Oddest moment of the night came here. For some as yet unexplained reason, John McCain blurts out that South Koreans are three inches taller than North Koreans, somehow attempting to link height with oppression. Truly weird. and….

There is one point of alleged profanity here, and you can barely make it out but it is audible. When Barack Obama chides McCain for not wanting to talk to the President of Spain, a NATO Ally, you can just make out McCain saying something that just might be “Horseshit” twice. But it could also be “Of Course not”. which brings a host of questions on it’s own. I’ll write about it and post the video in the “Philosophical Musings” section of this site, you be the judge.

Bad manners, Mister McCain, all’s fair in debates. You’d been tossing grenades at him all night, don’t whine when one comes your way. Shows a lack of respect for the venue and the event and the people you are speaking to, that being the American People.

That’s it for Part two of The Debate Analysis. Part three, the last one (I promise) tomorrow.

Uncle Mikey

Today I am going to look at 3 men, one a Lobbyist, one that lobbyist’s business partner, and the other a former lobbyist working in the McCain Campaign, and their baggage.

First Up: Harry Sargent/Mustafa Abu Naba’a. The McCain campaign last week had to return $50,000 in contributions from donors due to the fact that the donations were in fact collected by a foreign national, Mr. Mustafa Abu Naba’a, a man who is a citizen of both Jordan and the Dominican Republic. This is seen as potentially conflicting with election laws, because it is illegal for foreign nationals to give to American political campaigns. Not to mention that the money came from donors who do not even back Senator McCain.

Mister Abu Naba’a owns a 1/3 share of Mister Sargent’s company, which supplies oil to the U.S. military in Iraq, and has contracts that could be worth up $1,400,000,000 with the U.S. military.

That’s a nice piece of change.

Also of some interest here was the amount given and the people who wrote the checks that Mister Naba’a allegedly picked up for Mister Sargent for the McCain campaign. The amount given? The most allowable to give, by law. $2,300 per person. It is HIGHLY unlikely that an Auto Mechanic, a Taco Bell Manager, and a couple that at one time ran a liquor store would have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not exactly the people you would normally imagine giving this much, and I severely doubt that any of these people actually have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. I know auto mechanics. They don’t make enough money to actually be able to give that kind of money to a political campaign. The guy doing your brakes doesn’t make enough to give like that. Trust me on this one.

And if Taco bell pays that much, I’m leaving the copy center of the Law Firm I work at and going to taco bell to chase my dream of wealth and success. Oh wait. They don’t…pay.. that much…. Hmmmm… Neither does working a Liquor store. That job is more likely to get you on TV as a shooting victim than any real prosperity.

But Wait there’s More!

Mister Sargent is also being looked at by Rep. Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for overcharging the military for the fuel he sold them. And the contract that he signed with the Military is interesting, insofar as it was not the lowest bid for the supplying of oil used by the American military in Iraq.

Another Bundler of joy is a man named Randy Scheunemann. He is former President of the committee for the liberation of iraq, of which John McCain was a member, which was widely seen as a PR organization for the Iraq war push back in 2002. He was also closely linked to the Project for the New American Century, A Neo-conservative think tank, which is stated as an important shaper of American Foreign policy. Other Members of this Think tank Included Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.

He was also an Advisor to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq. He is now foreign policy aide to John McCain.

This man, Scheunemann, has been linked to Ahmed Chalabi, The First Iraqi Oil Minister, who has given state secrets to Iran and has been accused of fraud involving Iraqi currency as well as grand theft of both national and private assets in Iraq.

Scheunemann has also been linked to, and in fact worked for, Stephen Payne, the disgraced former lobbyist who offered access to Senior administration officials in exchange for large amounts of cash for the George W. Bush Public Library.

And Until March of this year, Mister Scheunemann had been a lobbyist for the nation of Georgia, who were recently attacked and mauled by the Russian bear. Could this be the reason for John McCain’s rush to take the Georgian’s side in the recent Georgia-Russian conflict?

This is very fertile ground for analysis. There are TONS more Lobbyists, and not just McCain’s men who I can skewer. Are there any shady dealings going on anywhere that you would like to be brought to light? Anyone out there you think needs to get the third degree? Drop me a Line and Let me know!

Uncle Mikey

Here we go again, Ladies and Gentlemen, another go-round on the Foreign Policy unmerry-go-round, This time only with a passing focusing on Iraq.

On Barack Obama’s website, he has a page dedicated to his foreign policy as it relates to other areas of the world. This includes Iran, Darfur, Sierra Leone, and Israel. I will focus on his Iraq policy only to state that he says there will be a “residual force” left behind in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al-qaeda. His points on other nations include:

1 ) The eventual creation of a Palestinian state along side the Israelis.

2 ) The use of direct Presidential diplomacy with Iran. No “Saber-rattling”, Diplomacy.

3 ) Insulating the Director of National Intelligence, making him a more independent player, having a depoliticizing effect on the DNI.

4 ) Increased American and non American troop numbers in Afghanistan, 4 Brigades total, 2 American, 2 from NATO, among other things.

5 ) Increased Dialogue with the Chinese, among other things.

The Impression one gets in reading this part of Mister Obama’s website is that he believes that diplomacy and intelligence are weapons in the war against terrorism, alongside our military.

John McCain’s website however, has much less on the diplomatic edge and has a much larger military focus. While there are a great many different places on Obama’s website you can see for yourself what he will do, on a nation by nation basis, you get none of that with John McCain.

John McCain has No section devoted to Foreign Policy on his website, he does have one for Iraq, but No other nation is treated as such. What he does however have, is a rather extensive “National Security” section, which makes the following statements:

1 ) … the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security.

2 ) … John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation’s obligations both at home and abroad.

3 ) … The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security.

The Impression one gets in reading this particular section is that the man thinks of the United States Military as almost a diplomatic arm of the Executive branch of government. And while I can almost understand that, he fails to mention, at all, the need for actual diplomacy that comes from anywhere else but the barrel of an American gun. The Military IS a part of our Government, but Mister McCain treats it, at least here, as it’s most Important part, a point which I vehemently disagree with the man on.

Did not President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his final speech as president, warn us about the “Military-Industrial Complex”? It seems Senator McCain is very much about said complex.

As an aside, both men have decried the Russian Invasion of the nation of Georgia, which I covered in Monday’s article. An Invasion that truly did not get enough press to start off. John Edwards has gotten more press with a story that is a few months old, about marital infidelity, than thousands dying in a war with a resurgent cold war power has gotten.

Think there is something I am missing about either man’s Foreign policy stances that needs to be discussed? Think either man misses the point? Think I do? Want to discuss Foreign Policy? Drop me a Line!

Uncle Mikey

Foreign Policy. It’s a big world out there, and we need someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. In light of the events in South Ossetia, and the War between Russia and Georgia, and with Us in Afghanistan, and That lovely little place called Iraq, I think it’s high time to look at how these gentlemen voted on the senate floor On foreign policy issues. Many thanks to Project Vote Smart for the Information I gleaned from their website.

Like I mentioned a few articles back, These men have missed a fair amount of their more recent votes.

Barack Obama has Missed 15 of the last 22 senate foreign policy votes, dating back to June 2007, with his last vote coming June 26th of this year, A yes Vote on Iraq and Afghanistan war Funding, Unemployment benefits extension, and The G.I. Bill, a bill which passed with Bipartisan Support,92-6.

John McCain has missed 19 of the Last 22 senate foreign policy votes, dating back to June 2007, with his last votes coming December 18th 2007, a No vote on The Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, an amendment to hr 2764, the “Inclusion of Iraq and Afghanistan Military Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations” bill, on which he voted yes. The Iraq Withdrawal Amendment was defeated 71-24, and the Iraq M.O.F. appropriations bill passed 70-25.

Not Surprisingly, these gentlemen have not voted the same way on a single foreign policy issue when they have both voted on the same bill, which admittedly has not happened often. Mister McCain has only voted on eight of twenty seven foreign policy bills since Barack Obama started his tenure in the Senate. Senator Obama mind you, is not Much better, with twelve of twenty seven.

Obama Voted Yes, and McCain No, on the first two bills they voted On in common, The Iraq Progress Reports Amendment to S 1042, The Reporting Matters in Iraq Amendment.

This bill would have had the president report to the congress on U.S. Policy and Military matters in Iraq every three months until the Last Brigade is home. S. 1042 was not adopted, being voted down 48-50, with all but one Republican present and voting no.

If you look at Both senators records the One thing that stands out is their stances on Iraq, which exactly jibe with their rhetoric.

But there is more to Foreign Policy than Iraq. There’s an entire world out there to look at, and I will look past just their voting record and delve into their statements about foreign policy, and try my best to probe deeper into the potential next Presidents mind to see just what is going on there.

Uncle Mikey

First, the Basics. We have 3 sides here. Georgia, South Ossetia, and Russia. South Ossetia is a province in the nation of Georgia that has been trying to break away from Georgia for the better part of 18 years. It has declared independence, along with an area called Abkhazia. This independence has not been diplomatically recognized by any nation. For a history of the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict, click here.

The Beginning of this Conflict is Kind of Murky. Both sides claim the other started shooting first. At this point it doesn’t really matter, because what started out as dueling sniper fire now has thousands of combatants, and is drawing the increasing ire of a great many nations, calling for an immediate cease fire. A few selected statements:

President Bush said on Monday:

“Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century,”

From this Report from Reuters there was also a statement from a “Senior U.S. official” that this looked like it had been planned out by the Russians for some time.

Great Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown on Sunday said:

We will continue to press for international action to help bring this conflict to an end, and we urge both parties to agree an immediate ceasefire.”

Almost All the nations of the G-8, Which include not just the Two above-mentioned nations, but Japan, Germany, Canada, Italy and France, are also calling for International mediation over the growing crisis. Notice I said Almost. Russia was noticeably absent here.

I do not know how much you know about this place, I am only really learning about it myself, But there are a few things that strike me here. Vladimir Putin is quoted as saying that this war will be taken to it’s “logical conclusion”, and that there are two very profitable oil Pipelines, The Baku-Supsa and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, that run through Georgia.

Can you say war for oil? It is being talked about. One or two more fast facts.

Russia moved 5 battalions of the 58th Army to the Russia/Georgia Border several days before The Georgians began their all out assault on South Ossetia, when this was still just a few snipers on both sides going at it.

The United States has airlifted the Georgian troops that were serving with us in Iraq directly to Georgia after the Russians Invaded.

Word that I am getting is that the Georgians have pulled back, but that the Russians have not.

For their Part, both Barack Obama and John McCain have also joined the chorus of voices around the world calling for a cease fire. Both men have spoken to Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia and issued terse statements condemning the war. Read them for yourself. First from McCain:

“Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government’s actions will have for Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe,”

Barack Obama makes an even stronger statement:

Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.
I reiterate my call for Russia to stop its bombing campaign, to stop flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and to withdraw its ground forces from Georgia. The Georgian government has proposed a cease-fire and the Russian government should accept it.

A Video for you, from the scene.

The Questions I think need to be asked are as follows. Do the Candidates statements have any real meaning outside the campaign trail? Do you think the world is really listening to them? They are still only senators after all.

Do you think this conflict could possibly draw the United States into it on the side of Georgia?

There are reports that have the Georgians opening fire on civilians, and even aid workers in the area, and killing Hundreds and possibly over 1,000 people, and of Russians doing the same, firing rockets, mortars and small arms at Georgian civilians, and of doing this for the Oil and not for the South Ossetians. Is there really any such thing as a good guy here, or in any war for that matter? Can there be?

Could the old Cold War, once dead, come back to life, and become Hot? I want to hear from you!

Uncle Mikey

Story Edit ETA 9:00A.M. 8/12 : Russia orders halt to fighting: Georgia Skeptical

Instead of giving my take here of all things green, at least up front, I think I will simply give them the floor, and let the green party speak for itself. Each quote will be directly from the Green party website, from it’s 2008 platform.

The Green Party of the United States supports divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized.

The Green’s call for :

Full withdrawal of US military forces, civilian military contractors, and corporate interests on the fastest possible timetable consistent with the safety of bringing home US troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other states of the region.

Re-formulate all international trade relations and commerce as currently held by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), (Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB), and the nascent Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The new formulation must be Fair Trade and the creation of a level playing field. It must protect labor, human rights, the environment and grow the local economy of receiver nations. Especially local agriculture and water supply must be protected from foreign corporate control and domination.

I have chosen to focus on foreign policy because my mind has been turned to it by the events in South Ossetia, and the Russian Invasion of the nation of Georgia. The economy is a regular focus of mine.

I believe in peace. I believe in doing our best for ourselves and the rest of the world. But I have to say that what I see, in the Non-violence espoused by the green party as a main part of the party platform, is unfortunately, not enough in this intensely war-like time. I think we do need to get out of Iraq ASAP, because the war is wrong on just about every level. I do think that we need to go after, hunt and kill Osama Bin Laden and Al-qaeda, and that we need some kind of force in the Area to assist in that hunt, which means, by necessity, a force In Afghanistan.

If, like Me, you simply read the 2008 platform of the party, you get the impression that they are, well, a bit more interested in what we do for the world, and much less what we do for ourselves. And while I am very happy to see their Anti-corporate stances, I do not entirely get their stance on universal basic Income, or the realistic-ness, for lack of a better term, of their Corporate control, and their Banking and Insurance reform seems just a little undo-able and frankly, with the shape of of the economy right now, a little dangerous to the long term economic strength of The United States. But that’s just me.

A video for you, of the Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney accepting the Nomination of the Green Party.

What do you think of the Green Party platform, and the Green party in general? Is their 2008 Platform viable, given the current economic and political circumstances this nation finds itself dealing with? Drop me a line and let me know!

Uncle Mikey

There was an election yesterday. In a democracy. These votes are being counted, but in reality it is hard to say that they really count. A Man, an old man, without vision or cares about anything but himself and his cronies, or at least that is how he is painted by the world, is going on as if nothing in the world is wrong. He has, according to all accounts, taken it upon himself to bring the iron fist of dictatorship and crush the life out of the democracy that was once the brightest beacon of hope in Africa, in what used to be that continents breadbasket. The man’s name?

Robert Mugabe.

Mister Mugabe’s forces, according to reports have threatened harm to the populous if they do not vote, and are also there, it is said, to make sure that those who vote, vote for Robert Mugabe. According to The Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, 86 of it’s members have been murdered and thousands injured in election violence that was meant to intimidate the populous into giving up the dream of freedom that is democracy. According to Zanu-pf, the Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front, the violence was actually perpetrated by the MDC. Kinda Odd behavior for them to do that, don’t ya think? Kill 86 of their own members? Does Mister Mugabe think people are really that stupid?

As far as the vote is concerned, the Numbers were seemingly much smaller this time around than during the first election on March 29th. During that election, people were lined up by the hundreds at 5:30 in the morning according to reports I got. Not so much this time. There were not all that many people out there voting. Most of the pictures that I saw, apparently live from both CNN and FOX, were of more or less empty streets, with maybe three or four people out and about and about at the polling stations. Mister Tsvangirai has asked the people to boycott the election, but to vote “If their lives were threatened”.

Now I cannot say that Nobody voted of their own free will, or that no one likes Robert Mugabe, I have heard there are sections of Zimbabwe that are very Pro-Mugabe. I am certain that there are people who enthusiastically voted for him, who believe in him as a leader. But he LOST that first election. He is not, Simply by dint of that fact, the choice of the people of Zimbabwe. Any thoughts about democracy in Zimbabwe, without reference to that, have no real meaning. Ohh, one more thing. During that first election, Do you know what party won control of their senate and the house of Assembly?

That’s right. The MDC. The Opposition party.

It would not surprise me if they were chased out and hunted down by Mister Mugabe’s War Veterans. We will see. It was OK when the MDC had 7 of 66 seats in the Senate, and 41 of 150 in the House of Assembly, those numbers being the amount of seats they won in the 2005 elections. But now that the MDC a majority of H.O.A. members. and an even amount of senators, I wonder what will happen to them now.

A video from Sky News about the election In Zimbabwe:

There should be no future for Robert Mugabe, but there is. A truly pitiful day for the Zimbabwean people.

That’s right folks, Bonus Coverage, and since this is election-coverage, and not American-only-election-coverage, I’d like to focus away from the Good Ole’ US of A, every Once in a while. After all we aren’t the only people on earth who vote. Lets check out Zimbabwe, Since they’ve been in the news of late.

For those who haven’t heard or been paying attention, There is a LOT of Unease and Bad blood In the Nation of Zimbabwe over the state of the Country. Let me fill you in. The Inflation rate there is the WORST on the planet. Let me drop a line from a story about Zimbabwean Inflation from about 3 weeks ago. From the AP Report:

Weary Zimbabweans are facing a new wave of price increases that will put many basic goods even further out of their reach: A loaf of bread now costs what 12 new cars did a decade ago.

Independent finance houses said in an assessment Tuesday that annual inflation rose this month to 1,063,572 percent based on prices of a basket of basic foodstuffs. Economic analysts say unless the rate of inflation is slowed, annual inflation will likely reach about 5 million percent by October.

As stores opened for business Wednesday, a small pack of locally produced coffee beans cost just short of 1 billion Zimbabwe dollars. A decade ago, that sum would have bought 60 new cars.

And fresh price rises were expected after the state Grain Marketing Board announced up to 25-fold increases in its prices to commercial millers for wheat and the corn meal staple.

THIS is why the people there want change. The Current President and only leader Zimbabwe has had since declaring Independence, Robert Mugabe, Leader of the Zanu-PF party(Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front) rigged the 2002 election, stole land from white farmers and gave it to his men, and crippled the economy to the point where it is now by, among other things, instituting price controls on basic commodities, causing panic that closed shops down for months. Oh he’s done one or two other things as well. An example:

A few years ago “Operation restore order” took place, arresting over 17,000 individuals, closing down businesses and flea markets, and displacing almost 700,000 people, over 220,000 of which were children. Read about it here

Lovely Guy, huh? Let me Introduce his Opponent:

Leader of The MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) Morgan Tsvangirai, is the man who lost the rigged election in 2002, and is trying again here and now. Initial reports had him and his party winning the election held March 29th Outright, which, if true, would have been the death knell for Robert Mugabe’s reign over the nation. Initial reports had the MDC winning the Presidential election by 57% to 42%, something like that, I’m pulling those numbers from memory from a radio broadcast from BBC World service in Early april.

But as time went on the numbers kept changing, as news of intimidation began to creep across the airwaves news came of possible vote tampering, nothing that could be proven of course. Finally after much hemming and hawing from the ZANU-PF and complaints from the MDC, The run-off election was called for, because the claim was that the election was too close to call.

BTW, The early announcement of the Results, By MDC Secretary General Tendai Biti, lead to his arrest yesterday after months out of the country. He has been arrested for high treason for doing this, and if convicted, faces the Death Penalty.

A video from the AP from april 4th:

66 members of the MDC have been killed as well, and MDC Head Morgan Tsvangirai has been detained Numerous times by the police to stop him from campaigning, claiming they cannot keep him safe.

Oh, BTW, That run off election is coming up June 27th, I’ll do what I can to get you results from that as close to real time as possible.

What kind of international political coverage are you looking for? Is there a particular story from outside the United States that catches your eye that you would like more info on? Drop me a Line and let me know!