Although Chomsky echoes the talking points of the USAID administrator Mark Green about “Ortega’s brutal regime,” he can’t quite bring himself to accept responsibility for regime change. Chomsky despairs, “it’s hard to see a simple way out at this point. It’s a very unfortunate situation.”
Chomsky is concerned about corruption, repression, and autocracy in Nicaragua, urging the democratically elected president to step down and run for re-election. Need it be mentioned that Chomsky chastised leftists who did not “absolutely” support Hillary Clinton? It is from this moral ground that the professor looks down on Nicaragua.
These charges of corruption and such are addressedby long-time solidarity activist Chuck Kaufman:
+ The World Bank, IMF, and EU countries have certified Nicaragua for its effective use of international loans and grants; funds were spent for the purposes they were given, not siphoned off into corruption.+ Kaufman asks, “why a police force that in 39 years had not repressed the Nicaraguan people would suddenly go berserk,” while videos clearly show the violence of the more militant opposition.+ Ortega won in 2006 with a 38% plurality, in 2011 with 63%, and 72.5% in 2016. The Organization of American States officially accompanied and certified the vote. Kaufman notes, “Dictators don’t win fair elections by growing margins.”
Alternatives to Ortega would be worse
Those who call for Ortega’s removal need to accept responsibility for what comes after. Here the lesson of Libya is instructive, where the replacement of, in Chomsky’s words, the “brutal tyrant” and “cruel dictator” Qaddafi has resulted in a far worsesituation for the Libyan people.
Any replacement of Ortega would be more, not less, neoliberal, oppressive, and authoritarian.
noam chomsky, he really needs to stop the fake assery.
i think we've had more than enough from him to last a life time.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, August 6, 2018. Where's the accountability?
Iraq held elections months ago but has still not formed a government. REUTERS states, "Iraq’s election commission ignored an anti-corruption body’s warnings about the credibility of electronic vote-counting machines used in May’s parliamentary election, according to investigators and a document seen by Reuters."
Wait! The voting machines might not be secure? If only someone could have seen that coming, if only someone . . .
Oh, wait. We did. We pointed this out repeatedly from the moment the Iraqi government announced its intent to use electronic voting machines. The last time we noted it was in the April 24th snapshot:
Yesterday, REUTERS noted, "A new electronic system will deliver the results of Iraq’s upcoming national election within hours of polls closing, the country’s chief electoral officer said, a marked improvement from previous years when it took weeks to announce the outcome."
This is only an improvement if the vote is secure. That means that the voting is protected and verifiable. The Iraqi people should be sure that they own the machines, that there is a paper ballot trail should recounts need to take place and that the machines are inspected to ensure security. Without taking these and other measures, the machines can be hacked -- just as easily as any other machine can be. The only real benefit is quick results but quick results mean nothing if the results are questionable.
That second paragraph above is me speaking, not REUTERS. A point I raise because my many fans in the media felt the need to tell me -- as they so often do -- that I was blowing my "credibility" (didn't realize I had any with them) by talking about "nonsense" like that. Electronic machines, didn't I understand, were secure. Blah blah blah. Anyone want to go public on that? I'll gladly reprint your e-mail in full as you call me a fool for raising concerns about voting machines.
Which is not to say that REUTERS and others were not concerned about voting issues. For example, in the April 24th REUTERS report linked to above, they express concern over . . . voter i.d. cards. Not over the security of voting machines.
The time to raise concerns about voting machines was before they were used. Apparently, raising valid concerns risks one's "credibility." So, instead, the corporate media was silent about potential risks in the lead up to the election and now, months after the election, they want to slam Iraq?
Excuse me, what could have given the idea that these machines were safe? Western coverage of the intended use of these machines which repeatedly treated the machines as a hallelujah and sang repeated hosannas to the machines in filed report after filed report.
Let's stay with Iraqi elections for a bit more.
Iraq held elections months ago but has still not formed a government. REUTERS states, "Iraq’s election commission ignored an anti-corruption body’s warnings about the credibility of electronic vote-counting machines used in May’s parliamentary election, according to investigators and a document seen by Reuters."
Wait! The voting machines might not be secure? If only someone could have seen that coming, if only someone . . .
Oh, wait. We did. We pointed this out repeatedly from the moment the Iraqi government announced its intent to use electronic voting machines. The last time we noted it was in the April 24th snapshot:
Yesterday, REUTERS noted, "A new electronic system will deliver the results of Iraq’s upcoming national election within hours of polls closing, the country’s chief electoral officer said, a marked improvement from previous years when it took weeks to announce the outcome."
This is only an improvement if the vote is secure. That means that the voting is protected and verifiable. The Iraqi people should be sure that they own the machines, that there is a paper ballot trail should recounts need to take place and that the machines are inspected to ensure security. Without taking these and other measures, the machines can be hacked -- just as easily as any other machine can be. The only real benefit is quick results but quick results mean nothing if the results are questionable.
That second paragraph above is me speaking, not REUTERS. A point I raise because my many fans in the media felt the need to tell me -- as they so often do -- that I was blowing my "credibility" (didn't realize I had any with them) by talking about "nonsense" like that. Electronic machines, didn't I understand, were secure. Blah blah blah. Anyone want to go public on that? I'll gladly reprint your e-mail in full as you call me a fool for raising concerns about voting machines.
Which is not to say that REUTERS and others were not concerned about voting issues. For example, in the April 24th REUTERS report linked to above, they express concern over . . . voter i.d. cards. Not over the security of voting machines.
The time to raise concerns about voting machines was before they were used. Apparently, raising valid concerns risks one's "credibility." So, instead, the corporate media was silent about potential risks in the lead up to the election and now, months after the election, they want to slam Iraq?
Excuse me, what could have given the idea that these machines were safe? Western coverage of the intended use of these machines which repeatedly treated the machines as a hallelujah and sang repeated hosannas to the machines in filed report after filed report.
Let's stay with Iraqi elections for a bit more.
You can think America's invasion of Iraq was unjust while ALSO thinking Putin's meddling in America's elections was unjust.
But to that's impossible for Glenn Greenwald to comprehend.
Putin's meddling in America's elections was unjust?
I do love the liars. Pe Resists is full of crap as so many are -- either due to an addiction to lying or to their own stupidity. There is no proof that Vladimir Putin meddled in America's elections.
There is the reality that the US has repeatedly meddled in Iraq's elections. Most infamously, in 2010, the US government overturned the election results in Iraq via The Erbil Agreement which gave loser Nouri al-Maliki a second term -- in opposition to what the voters wanted.When Pe Resists wants to address that, he can get off his damn high horse.
So can Senator Amy Kobluchar who's usually a bit smarter than the Senate Penises -- Senators Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and Chris Van Hollen. But all joined together to declare at the end of last month to denounce interference in US elections. Yet all the dicks were members of the US Senate (or, in Van Hollen's case, the US House of Representatives) when Iraq's 2010 election was violated by the US government -- led by then-President Barack Obama.
In other words, Amy, Chuck, Dianne, Dick and Chrissy aren't just dicks, they're hypocrites.
It matters only when it comes to them. When it someone else's elections, they don't give a damn. The term is "hypocrite" and that is what they are.
And the interference in Iraq's elections never ends.
#US wants #Kurdistan's parliamentary elections scheduled on Sep. 30 to be postponed.
US has urged political parties to postpone Kurdistan elections: PUK official.
On Sunday @LahurTalabany warned that if the parliamentary elections is held on time, it would create more divisions among the political parties and said he favors postponing the elections.
#Kurdistan
Mikhan Hasso, a member of the KDP Leadership Council, said that @brett_mcgurk has asked for postponement of the elections based on the request of the PUK and Gorran Movement, McGurk believes elections would create "more division" and affects Iraqi government formation.
Last year the US wanted the referendum postponed until after Iraq elections because it might lead to "instability"; now the excuse will be to postpone elections because Iraq hasn't formed a government or something...
Basically, the US wants democracy and everything else to serve their interests or else postponed. Paying peshmerga is a way of having leverage I guess.
I’m not even sure how this advances US interests. Is the US interested in inducing more political instability in Kurdistan? Did we not learn from the fallout from our unsound advice on extending Massoud Barzani’s presidential term?
They prioritize formation of the Iraqi government, that's the reason.
Exactly, they want to keep the status quo until then
Except the status quo hasn’t been all that stable in the past several years.
Yes but this is a sound reasoning, that the US policy and strategy is lacking in the region leaving us suffering and frustrated.
I'm sorry but when will Senate dicks Amy, Chuck, Dianne, Dick and Chrissy complain about that? Never? Then sit your hypocritical asses down you xenophobic trouble makers.
Again, the default position for Iraqi elections has been US interference.
In 2010, Iraqis chose the Iraiqya slate led by Ayad Allawi. It was a non-sectarian slate that was inclusive in every way -- religion, gender, etc. Ayad Allawi should have been prime minister. For eight months, Nouri al-Maliki threw a tantrum and refused to step down as prime minister. Despite the fact that it was already known that Nouri was torturing Iraqis in secret prisons and jails, Barack Obama decided to back him and had Brett McGurk negotiate The Erbil Agreement. Joe Biden showed up in Iraq to give a speech on Ireland that had Ayad Allawi and others present confused as to whether Joe was drunk or stoned.
Had the Iraqis been able to have the government they elected in 2010, they wouldn't have had ISIS. ISIS took hold because of Nouri's repeated persecution of the Sunnis. Not only did the US government install him for a second term, when the Iraqi politicians used the Constitutional method to remove Nouri, the US paid off fat whore Jalal Talabani to stop the process. Jalal created a new power for himself -- he wasn't merely, as the Constitution outlined, to present the petition for a no confidence vote to Parliament, he was to check every signature and not only ensure that they were valid but also to offer the signer the chance of saying whether they would sign on or not. Jalal never provided anyone with how many still supported the removal -- it may have been all of them. Instead, he claimed he had to have dire, life-saving surgery and high tailed it to Germany. He had elective knee surgery. Later, in a fight with Nouri al-Maliki, he would have a stroke. Poetic justice.
Now the US interference led to the rise of ISIS which further destroyed Iraq.
Exactly when are the Senate dicks Amy, Chuck, Dianne, Dick and Chrissy going to issue a statement on that?
When, pray tell, will they take accountability?
Or how about accountability for Barack installing the useless Hayder al-Abadi as prime minister in 2014?
Protesters flooded the streets of southern Iraq again on Sunday, nearly a month into a wave of unrest over corruption and decaying public services, AFP correspondents said
Iraqis protesting since the first days of July demanding basic life services and fix the unemployment. The Govt did nothing in reality- only some promising as usual. I think #IraqProtests will not be peaceful, as current, if thr Govt continue careless management and lying to them
#Iraq's south witnesses new protests against corruption, power cuts ptv.io/2cOx
For four years, Hayder delivered nothing.
When do the Senate Dicks and others apologize for that?
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Where's the government?
- TV: Those summer offerings
- Unlike Alyssa Milano, we'll stand with Illeana Dou...
- Jim's World
- Summer's comedy hit
- Read a book?
- From The TESR Test Kitchen
- Twitter Thread Not To Miss
- Highlights
