Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Kendra17
During the Vietnam War, Bush was trained to fly dangerous supersonic interceptors designed to protect our country in case of a Soviet nuclear attack.

"Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers."

You might have been right the first time. Any Soviet flights would have been intercepted, whether or not they were actually preparing to bomb Washington DC. I wonder...

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by jrydberg
They are almost entirely unrelated. A more appropriate statement would be that Bush spent huge sums of money and the deficit soared.

That is also a true statement, but this chart from the tax policy center will also show that corporate and individual tax revenues have decreased since Bush took office. I am not in a position to increase my expenditures while taking a lower paying job. Neither should our government.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203

In 2000, corporate and individual tax receipts totaled $1,211,751,000,000 compared to $992,239,000,000 estimated for this year. The nearly $220 billion difference between the two accounts for nearly half our deficit.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Long term, I agree with this. But over the period of a year or so, it most certainly does have an effect.

Valid point, to some degree. I guess I just saw that whole thing as political gamesmanship. Kerry, of course, was not voting against providing our troops with what they needed. But neither do I think that Bush was wrong to keep the tax issue out of it. Political maneuvering of a rather ordinary sort in Washington.

 

[spearenb]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
As the race heats up and the accusations (notice I didn't say attacks) really start flying around, are you going to listen and investigate any accusations that are leveled against your candidate?


What I would be curious to know is and as the political battle heats up over the next 3 months, what would be the likelihood of you either not voting for Kerry or Bush if some really politically (or personal) news that you just completely disagreed with (something that wasn't know already and turned out to be true) was revealed.

What was the orginial OP for this thread, you might be asking yourself. I post it here as a community service to refresh the thread.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by spearenb
What was the orginial OP for this thread, you might be asking yourself. I post it here as a community service to refresh the thread.

Good point...lol...We do tend to get a bit far astray now and then, don't we ::

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by KarenC
That is also a true statement, but this chart from the tax policy center will also show that corporate and individual tax revenues have decreased since Bush took office. I am not in a position to increase my expenditures while taking a lower paying job. Neither should our government.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203

In 2000, corporate and individual tax receipts totaled $1,211,751,000,000 compared to $992,239,000,000 estimated for this year. The nearly $220 billion difference between the two accounts for nearly half our deficit.

Those numbers ignore the economic difficulties associated with the past few years. If you look at 1999 or 1998 compared to this year, you come up with substantially more revenue. Tax revenue varies far more with the state of the economy than it does with tax rates.

That $220 billion difference is not necessarily attributable to tax cuts (certainly a debateable point either way). Historically (Kennedy and Reagan, as the two most obvious examples), tax cuts have not negatively impacted revenue.

By the way, I agree that the government should not be increasing expenditures. It's one of the big problems I do have with the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, Kerry doesn't offer much in the way of cutting spending.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Kendra, there is so much wrong and blatantly false in your post that I'm almost not sure where to start...

1 - Clinton and Carter didn't spend months at a time away from the White House. Bush has. Again, more vacation time away from Washington than ANY president in history.

As was stated in prior posts, many of those so-called vacations were actually time spent working and meeting with officials. This can be called a vacation if you like. Again, this doesn't fly.

2 - No, Bush HASN'T proven that he showed up for duty. The records he released show a significant gap in time (read the Boston Globe article linked earlier in this thread). Not only that, but the Associated Press has actually had to sue to get access to his full records, as he will not release them.[/QUOTE]

Let me put a a logical twist on this. Terry McAulliffe was the one who made the original accusation. Do you understant this? He never backed up his accusation with factual proof. The burden on proof lies on your end; not ours. If I made an accusation about Kerry, wouldn't it be up to me to prove it, rather than you to have to find a source about something that in fact never happened?

3 - So, they (his commanders) lied then on his performance reports and awards certifications, right ? They were either lying then or they're lying now, and now they have an agenda...[/QUOTE]

I believe 250 vets over Kerry. It is reasonable, at the time, not to derail someone when there isn't as much at stake. They may have thought he deserved an honorable discharge--but there's more at stake now, and this is when the truth comes out. So far, unlike McAulliffe's empty accusation, they are backing their statements up with signed affidavits and pointing out his lies regarding Cambodia.

4 - Everybody keeps saying Kerry panders to his audience, but I've yet to see a real example of this, other than the one stupid comment about the SUV. [/QUOTE]

Well, I think we're looking at a larger picture. I find lying about war crimes pandering to the anti-war movement.

5 - You're right, there is a big difference in perspective. I see a world where terrorists can easily stage in Hamburg, travel to Canada through France, then cross the US border and find their way to our cities. To stop them, we could have had the active cooperation of any of those countries, but instead all three are annoyed with us for ignoring their opinions on Iraq and the "war on terror". Bush's "coalition" is just Newspeak...it doesn't exist. It's us and Britain going it alone, with our soldiers taking the brunt of the attacks against us. We DO live in a "world community", whether you want to admit that or not. It's a "community" because it is all too easy for the exact scenario I laid out above to happen.[/QUOTE]

It actually does exist. These countries send as many as they can afford to; they have much smaller militaries. This doesn't mean they aren't behind it, and I have no problem with the fact that Germany and France aren't with us. Their participation means little to me except that they are hoping they will be able to play a stronger part on the world stage (note: not community). Also, I don't agree with Bush's stance on Chechnya--that is not continually and actively condemning the Chechen terrorists. Had he been more supportive of Putin and Russia, I think we may have recieved more support from them.

6 - The Iraqis DO NOT WANT US THERE. Why is that so friggin' hard to understand ? If Bush and company thought we'd be greeted with flowers and hugs, then they're unbelievably incompetant and completely ignorant of that part of the world. Yes, they're mighty glad Saddam is gone. But that doesn't translate into gratitude for Americans when they can look around and see dead neighors killed by American shells.[/QUOTE]

Uhh, many do want us there. Why is that so friggin' hard to understand ? We WeRE greeted with flowers and hugs. Also, we need to be there now, regardless. What do you think the chances are that Iraq will not be subjected to despotic rule--again--if we left? Considering there are NO Islamic Democracies yet, the chance is high. So, we'll be there. The first generation that endures this kind of change always finds it difficult. If we stay the course, there will be a positive result.

7 - Again, Bush HAS lied, again and again, about his service, and he still has not proven that he actually fulfilled his duties. Even if he had fulfilled them, however, there is a world of difference (literally) between his "duties" and those of an active duty soldier in a combat zone. The two don't even remotely compare. [/QUOTE]

No Bush hasn't lied. Conversely, Kerry's own statements regarding his alleged war crimes ARE a lie. Again, it is up to YOU to unequivocally prove Bush DIDN"T fulfill his duties, since the Democrats have made this accusation. Just as the SBV are attempting to prove their accusation with affidavits and reports.

I have no problem admitting Kerry faced danger. Of course he did. . .that's not at issue except that you are trying to make it one.

With that, I'm off to lunch with my lovely and brilliant husband! Have a great day!

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Those numbers ignore the economic difficulties associated with the past few years. If you look at 1999 or 1998 compared to this year, you come up with substantially more revenue. Tax revenue varies far more with the state of the economy than it does with tax rates.

That $220 billion difference is not necessarily attributable to tax cuts (certainly a debateable point either way). Historically (Kennedy and Reagan, as the two most obvious examples), tax cuts have not negatively impacted revenue.

By the way, I agree that the government should not be increasing expenditures. It's one of the big problems I do have with the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, Kerry doesn't offer much in the way of cutting spending.

I'm an old bond trader--I used to live and breathe on the data surrounding government revenue, expenditures and treasury refunding.

I think Kennedy and Reagan did our country a service by reducing very high marginal tax rates and that those tax cuts did have a stimulative effect on our economy. However, the bond market did punish the Reagan administration for the increasing deficits that occurred following his tax cuts. The resulting high real interest rates (nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation) negatively effected the economy. Reagan realized that deficits do matter and increased taxes several times (he called them revenue enhancements, but they were tax increases none the less). So when you look at revenue under Reagan you need to keep in mind that he juggled the tax code to "enhance" those revenues.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by bsears
Frank Gaffney, Jr. is a respected CONSERVATIVE columnist. He has an agenda and does not attempt to hide it. If you cannot see why that mattters, then you are correct, there is no point in discussing it.

I do see why that matters. However, the article I gave you was filled with FACTS--indisputable facts, not opinion. He cited events that happened. Here's a sampling of that article I had linked:

o Mr. Carter embraced Daniel Ortega's regime in Nicaragua even as Mr. Reagan sought to prevent the Cuban-backed Sandinista "revolution" from metastasizing into a threat to liberty elsewhere in Latin America..

o Mr. Carter traveled to North Korea to extol the peaceable intentions of Kim Il Sung's regime even as President Clinton was (briefly) confronting a bid by the "Great Leader" to acquire nuclear weapons and wield them to prop up his lunatic regime.

o Mr. Carter actually wrote members of the UN Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait, calling on them to thwart the first President Bush in his effort to reverse that act of aggression.

o Mr. Carter has for years made common cause with Yasser Arafat against America's ally, Israel, helping draft disingenuous speeches for the Palestinian despot and in at least one private seance with Arafat joining with former First Lady, Rosalynn Carter, in undermining the authority of the sitting President of the United States.

Yes, he inserted the word lunatic when describing N.Korea. Doesn't change that Carter did indeed do the things that Gaffney is describing.

Also, I gave you several other articles--including the name, date, and author's name of an article in the New Republic--a LIBERAL mag. If I can source it, despite the fact that it's not online (since it's at least a decade old), then it is valid material.

Peachgirl, you pointed out that the information should be reported only by moderate sources. i still tend to disagree. The NYT is admittedly liberal. . .but it's still accepted. And, the NYT has a credibility issue these days, but none of the sources I gave you have ever been accused of falsifying the issues.


If you're posting directly to me as I'm writing, I'll have to respond to your assertions later.

 

[bsears]

Can you not understand the simple fact that proving what Carter did does not prove that Clinton hates Carter?

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by KarenC
I'm an old bond trader--I used to live and breathe on the data surrounding government revenue, expenditures and treasury refunding.

I think Kennedy and Reagan did our country a service by reducing very high marginal tax rates and that those tax cuts did have a stimulative effect on our economy. However, the bond market did punish the Reagan administration for the increasing deficits that occurred following his tax cuts. The resulting high real interest rates (nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation) negatively effected the economy. Reagan realized that deficits do matter and increased taxes several times (he called them revenue enhancements, but they were tax increases none the less). So when you look at revenue under Reagan you need to keep in mind that he juggled the tax code to "enhance" those revenues.

Well, yes, Reagan did increase taxes after the dramatic cuts. But the bottom line is that tax rates overall decreased and revenue increased. Yes, deficits do matter. I'm gonna argue that we shouldn't worry about deficit spending. My argument is that tax rates won't help the deficit. Showing some spending discipline will. Unfortunately, neither Bush nor Kerry seems to have the desire to rein in spending.

 

[GaryAdams]

all i said was that Kerry filled out his after action reports. your the one who attempted to put words in my mouth.
i also pointed out how you toss away the views of the swiftboat vets,but embrace the the comanders who were never in the field.

now like in the case of the 2 people you graded,you filled it out,and signed it.
then it was passed up to maybe to say a Msgt or SMsgt.
they signed off,maybe added a few words,even though they never worked with that airman.
then it gets kicked up for the 3rd signiture.
say maybe Cpt or a Maj.
now he signs off too having never spent a day with that airman and again couldnt pick him out in a crowd.
you know how it works.

your the one who asked if i thought that maybe Kerry didnt tell the truth?
did you ever think maybe some of his comanders added to those reports to make themselfs look better to their comanders?
Or maybe on a slow day Kerry made a report more flattering by saying they exchanged fire with the enemy but luckly no one was hurt?
pretend all you want that things like that didnt happen,but in the real world they did,and do.
lets be real here, the vietnam war was all about bodycounts,if even have the bodies that the US says were killed were found the entire country of vietman would have been void of anyone.


i'm just questioning why you dismiss people who were in the field with him,but embrace those who only saw the reports?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by bsears
Can you not understand the simple fact that proving what Carter did does not prove that Clinton hates Carter?

I admit I can't find a quote. So, in that respect, you proved your point.

However, the point of a debate is to prove an opinion. Facts are indisputable. . .but in a debate the person is trying to sway the other side to agree with his/her opinion.

Although I can't find a quote that states "Clinton hates Carter", I do believe that someone reading all of the information I provided --that you did not even know about--is enough evidence to draw that conclusion. You may not.

Aren't we supposed to weigh facts and evidence or are we always supposed to regurgitate others'?

With all the facts I provided regarding Carter's actions (of which I provided an abundance) AND with Carter's vague answer regarding larry King's question of a 'rift', I'd have to say that any reasonable person would at least admit there is no love lost between the two.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
As was stated in prior posts, many of those so-called vacations were actually time spent working and meeting with officials. This can be called a vacation if you like. Again, this doesn't fly.

Ph, for crying out loud...The guy spent more time out of the white house than any president in history !!! Does that not figure in when someone supporting him questions whether or not Kerry will "show up" for work ?

Originally posted by Kendra17
Let me put a a logical twist on this. Terry McAulliffe was the one who made the original accusation. Do you understant this? He never backed up his accusation with factual proof. The burden on proof lies on your end; not ours. If I made an accusation about Kerry, wouldn't it be up to me to prove it, rather than you to have to find a source about something that in fact never happened?

It can't be "proved" by the Dems because Bush has to agree to release the records, which he won't do. But again, those records he DID release show significant dereliction of duty for significant periods of time. What more proof do you need than the fact that by his OWN ADMISSION (the release of those records) he never reported for duty for months at a time ?

Originally posted by Kendra17
I believe 250 vets over Kerry. It is reasonable, at the time, not to derail someone when there isn't as much at stake. They may have thought he deserved an honorable discharge--but there's more at stake now, and this is when the truth comes out. So far, unlike McAulliffe's empty accusation, they are backing their statements up with signed affidavits and pointing out his lies regarding Cambodia.

And I believe the people that actually served with Kerry over a bunch of right-wing jerks out to smear his name and make a buck. They've been shown to be liars more than once, and to believe them you have to think that the United States military gives out medals like lollipops. Sorry, but that just isn't true. Period. Oh, and the Cambodia thing has been debunked already, so I guess you guys will have to find another nothing issue to complain about

Originally posted by Kendra17
Well, I think we're looking at a larger picture. I find lying about war crimes pandering to the anti-war movement.

Oh, I'm sorry...was Kerry the only person to have said that atrocities were committed in Vietnam ? But I guess this is a safe issue since it's pretty likely that Dubya didn't get up to any "war crimes" when he was in Alabama, huh

Originally posted by Kendra17
It actually does exist. These countries send as many as they can afford to; they have much smaller militaries. This doesn't mean they aren't behind it, and I have no problem with the fact that Germany and France aren't with us. Their participation means little to me except that they are hoping they will be able to play a stronger part on the world stage (note: not community). Also, I don't agree with Bush's stance on Chechnya--that is not continually and actively condemning the Chechen terrorists. Had he been more supportive of Putin and Russia, I think we may have recieved more support from them.

Really ? I don't really think 15 soldiers from Zimbabwe constitutes much of a coalition, but maybe that's just me Besides, I'm not just talking about the war in Iraq, I'm talking about the global fight against terrorism...a fight where we HAVE to have the active cooperation of those two countries you so easily shrug off if we're to be effective.

Originally posted by Kendra17
Uhh, many do want us there. Why is that so friggin' hard to understand ? We WeRE greeted with flowers and hugs. Also, we need to be there now, regardless. What do you think the chances are that Iraq will not be subjected to despotic rule--again--if we left? Considering there are NO Islamic Democracies yet, the chance is high. So, we'll be there. The first generation that endures this kind of change always finds it difficult. If we stay the course, there will be a positive result.

If you truly believe we were "greeted with hugs and flowers", there's just no point in continuing this discussion. Yes, there are those in that country that are happy we are there, though it's debatable whether it's even a simple majority, let alone "most". But I'll certainly agree that we can't just pull straight out and leave the country to fall into whatever chaos replaces us. But then, so does John Kerry. I just happen to think we screwed up by going in in the first place. But yeah, I'll grant that we now have to try to clean up the mess that Bush made.

Originally posted by Kendra17
No Bush hasn't lied. Conversely, Kerry's own statements regarding his alleged war crimes ARE a lie. Again, it is up to YOU to unequivocally prove Bush DIDN"T fulfill his duties, since the Democrats have made this accusation. Just as the SBV are attempting to prove their accusation with affidavits and reports.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by GaryAdams

i'm just questioning why you dismiss people who were in the field with him,but embrace those who only saw the reports?

There's a bank branch in the building where I work. When I'm walking into the lobby of my building, I see the people who work there. If I saw one of them on the street, I could probably say to myself, "Oh yeah...that's the lady that works in the bank." Does that qualify me to criticize her work? After all, technically, we work in the same place. (Our office building). I see her at work every day. However, I think she might take exception if I tried to horn in on her career in about 30 years or so, and say she did a lousy job way back then in 2004, and I'm qualified to say so, darn it, because we worked in the same place and I saw her every single day! I would hope, instead, any future employers might, just maybe, just possibly, give a little more weight to the performance reports she received from people who were above her in the bank--whether or not they actually saw her every day as I did.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by GaryAdams
i'm just questioning why you dismiss people who were in the field with him,but embrace those who only saw the reports?

Aside from the debate about the military grading process, this is the salient point. Those men WERE NOT in the field "with him". Yes, they were "in the field", but under enemy fire, do you really believe these men were watching and evaluating someone on another boat ? The men that actually served WITH John Kerry in the field ALL support him.

I'm sorry, but the "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" strike me as a bunch of vets angry about Kerry's post-war activities that saw an opportunity to hit at him while also making a few bucks by selling some books. It's as simple as that, really. When they lay down with the type of people that published that book and that fund their cause, they lose all credibility.

 

[bsears]

Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman and co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has changed his story about whether or not he actually knew Senator John Kerry in Vietnam.

May 6: "Hoffman acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may04/227671.asp?format=print

August 4: "'I knew him well enough to know him," Hoffman said. 'He's the most vain individual I've ever met - aloof and arrogant.'" [Scripps Howard News Service]http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=KERRY-MEDALS-08-04-04

August 5: Hoffman said, "We were on the same operations, we were operating within 25-50 yards of him all the time, and for them to suggest we don't know John Kerry is pure old bull." [The New York Times]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70612FB3E580C768CDDA10894DC404482

August 5: In response to Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) denunciation of the ad, Hoffman "said they respected McCain's 'right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Sen. McCain did not.'" [Associated Press]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL&type=printable

August 5: Hoffman said, "I knew him well, because I operated very closely with him and, uh, many of the operations, uh, most of the operations were-were conducted with multiple boats" - a dramatic shift from admitting no personal knowledge of Kerry three months earlier; it went unchallenged by his host. [ABC Radio's Sean Hannity Show]http://mediamatters.org/items/%20/search.html?string=sean+hannity


Am I the only one who think these guys sound a lot like a certain Jon Lovitz SNL character?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsears
Am I the only one who think these guys sound a lot like a certain Jon Lovitz SNL character?

No, I certainly don't believe that....and neither does my wife, Miss Morgan Fairchild Yeah...that's the ticket

I honestly don't know how anybody can buy this tripe. Nothing but a smear campaign with no truth to it at all. Smacks SERIOUSLY of Karl Rove, actually...

 

[BedKnobbery2]

First, my apologies to everyone on this thread for the side-tracked hi-jacking that has ensued, and I fully accept responsibility for participating.

Originally posted by Kendra17
I admit I can't find a quote. So, in that respect, you proved your point.

However, the point of a debate is to prove an opinion. Facts are indisputable. . .but in a debate the person is trying to sway the other side to agree with his/her opinion.

Although I can't find a quote that states "Clinton hates Carter", I do believe that someone reading all of the information I provided --that you did not even know about--is enough evidence to draw that conclusion. You may not.

Aren't we supposed to weigh facts and evidence or are we always supposed to regurgitate others'?

With all the facts I provided regarding Carter's actions (of which I provided an abundance) AND with Carter's vague answer regarding larry King's question of a 'rift', I'd have to say that any reasonable person would at admit there is no love lost between the two.

Good heavens, Kendra. Here you go--a factual report about Carter's actions. Oddly enough, they don't conclude that Carter undermined Clinton--rather that he offered guidance that led to Clinton avoiding a potential bloodbath in Haiti. See now, we're both talking about the same set of facts here....but come to seriously different conclusions. NOW do you understand what we're saying? That your opinions are not the facts, but just opinions?

"His trip to Haiti in September 1994 is the best know example of Carter the ex-President at work. Carter's inteference--combined, of course, with President Clinton's determination to use force if necessary--turned what would have been a bloody invasion with casualites and bitterness on all sides into a peaceful and apparently quite successful occupation. Carter was roundly attacked for his efforts, and some of the attacks seemed valid on the surface. A lot of people were outraged that Carter treated Haiti's military strongman, Lieutenant Raoul Cedras, with respect and called him a man of honor. A lot of people were outraged that Cedras and his henchmen initilly were permitted to remain in Haiti and allowed to keep some of their ill-gotten financial gains. A lot of people were outraged that at one point Carter said he was ashamed of his country for the way it had treated Haiti over the years. A lot of people were outraged that Carter, in defiance of official State Department policy, allowed the puppet president of Haiti to sign the agreement, thus seeming to give legitimacy to an essentially criminal regime......
......The bottom line was: There was no bloodshed. The elected, legitimate president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was restored, the killings and human rights violations were stopped, Cedras and his pals ended up leaving the country, and Haiti now has a better chance than anyone thought possible to become a relatively normal country instead of a nightmare of death and cruelty.

Many people, including some of Carter's customary critics, understood this in the immediate aftermath of Carter's trip and were willing to give him credit." -- Excerpted from an essay by Hendrick Hertzberg, from www.pbs.org

and

"The day after former President Jimmy Carter helped negotiate the agreement to avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti, The Los Angeles Times described him as a person with "a preternatural patience and an unshakable faith in his fellow man."

But in the eyes of President Carter and The Carter Center, another factor was at work. The situation in Haiti exemplified how nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like the Center can work with a government to prevent violent conflict and to promote peace and human rights.

"President Carter was able to help the U.S. avert a war in Haiti because of the Center's long history of involvement there," said Marion Creekmore, director of programs at The Carter Center. "We try to be available to assist countries that are struggling to build democracy."

In September 1994, President Carter was asked by Haitian Gen. Raoul Cedras to try to mediate the government crisis and avoid a U.S. military invasion of Haiti. President Carter relayed this information to President Clinton, who asked him to undertake a mission to Haiti with Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell. But it was The Carter Center's seven years of work in Haiti that laid the groundwork for that trip.


The Center's Role in Haiti
In 1987, members of the Center's Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government, an informal group of 25 current and former leaders from the Western Hemisphere, met to discuss the electoral process in Haiti. A presidential candidate had been assassinated, which threatened to undermine the entire process. President Carter, Prime Minister George Price of Belize, and Robert Pastor, director of the Center's Latin American and Caribbean Program (LACP), decided to fly directly to the island and try to steer the elections back on track. They succeeded at the time, but in December, the military intervened and prevented the election.

In July 1990, after a successful election-monitoring experience in Nicaragua, President Carter and Dr. Pastor visited Haiti and were invited by then-President Ertha Pascal-Trouillot and opposition leaders to monitor the election. In this effort, the Council joined the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and visited the country several times in advance of the Dec. 15 election. Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti's first free and fair election in its history.

Barely seven months later, President Aristide was overthrown by the military, and from that moment in September 1991 until the Carter-Nunn-Powell mission three years later, The Carter Center was actively involved in assisting the international community to restore constitutional government to Haiti. Prime Minister Michael Manley of Jamaica and U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali visited the Center in December 1992 to discuss possible U.N.-OAS involvement in Haiti, and President Aristide visited the Center the next month as well. Indeed, President Aristide remained in continuous contact with President Carter and Dr. Pastor and participated in many discussions at the Center on how to restore democracy to Haiti. Many of the ideas discussed bore fruit when the Carter-Nunn-Powell team met with Gen. Cedras in September 1994.


Negotiating the Haitian Agreement
"The three delegation members were a spectacular team," Dr. Pastor said. "They followed President Clinton's instructions and conveyed them in a way that permitted a peaceful, cooperative agreement to emerge from the most intense negotiations I have ever witnessed."

The delegation met with Gen. Cedras and other Haitian officials. They also met with Mrs. Cedras. "Gen. Powell and President Carter appealed to their sense of honor, their sense of dignity, their sense of obligation, their sense of wanting to protect their country," Sen. Nunn said. The delegation finally reached an agreement by late afternoon on Sept. 18--five hours past the noon deadline set for them by the Clinton administration. By then, U.S. troops were on their way to Haiti.

President Carter said he felt discomfort when Haiti's army chief, Brig. Gen. Philippe Biamby, accused the U.S. delegation of "acting" as peaceful mediators at the same time U.S. paratroopers were en route to Haiti.

"They refused to go any further with the talks," President Carter said of the Haitian leaders. "I made a very emotional address because I thought we had lost."

The impasse ultimately led to a meeting with 81-year-old Haitian President Emile Jonassaint. "He told me that Haiti chooses peace," President Carter said. Soon thereafter, President Jonassaint and Gen. Cedras signed an agreement to step down and restore Mr. Aristide as president by Oct 15.

As part of the agreement, 15,000 U.S. troops were sent to work with the Haitian military to assure the peaceful transition to an Aristide administration.

That night, President Clinton addressed the United States regarding the Haitian agreement. "As all of you know, at my request, President Carter, Gen. Colin Powell, and Sen. Sam Nunn went to Haiti to facilitate the dictators' departure," President Clinton said. "I have been in constant contact with them for the last two days. They have worked tirelessly, almost around the clock, and I want to thank them for undertaking this crucial mission on behalf of all Americans."

"We believe that with the United States forming a partnership with Haiti, the most poverty-stricken nation in our hemisphere will grow into one based on economic progress, democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights," said President Carter, who has now visited Haiti eight times. "That's our dream." --from the Carter Center website, www.cartercenter.org

Now, admittedly these are biased accounts, with a rosy opinion of the outcome. I don't expect you to swallow them whole and believe them, because I respect that you hold a different opinion about the issue. So please--please--attempt to respect that fact that others will not buy your opinions, or the opinions of those you agree with, as fact.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I honestly don't know how anybody can buy this tripe. Nothing but a smear campaign with no truth to it at all. Smacks SERIOUSLY of Karl Rove, actually...

Have you read the book?