Spain Struggles to Absorb Worst Terrorist Attack

03/13/2004 09:53:46 AM · #26

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Bush-I gave a "wink and a nod" to Hussein to go invade Kuwait and both sides in the Iraq/Iran were both given weapons by the US.

You said that Saddam was not "any kind of a threat to any of his neighboring countries." I challenged that statement. How does this rebuttal support your claim? A common ruse by those who cannot or will not answer a challenge is to divert atttention elsewhere.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I don't know what evidence David Kay had for saying what he did, but he's not alone as there were others who said the same, such as Scott Ritter. Now your logic can also be turned around...Did Bush see himself or know of any of Hussein's WMD's? Was there any concrete evidence presented by Bush for a case for war?

So David Kay had no evidence that you can quote. Thank you.
What evidence did Scott Ritter provide?
No, Bush did not see for himself, but he ( or at least his administration ) did provide evidence sufficient to get approval for an additional U.N. resolution and approval from the Congress to proceed with war planning, so if Bush believed the evidence, then he was not alone in his acceptance. If you see a poisonous snake in your backyard, would you wait for "concrete" evidence that it will attack your son or daughter, or would you believe the non-concrete evidence of what history teaches?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

What reports are these and who put them out??? I haven't heard about any of them. If your top CIA man is telling you that a report is wrong and you go against what he says, you have an agenda and you choose to listen to whomever you want. If there exists other reports, they didn't come from the CIA, your top intelligence agency.

Those reports came from foreign intelligence agencies and other agencies of the U.S. government. And, surely, you have heard of them - they were cited in the President's speeches, as well as those of Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and others in the administration. The top CIA man said that ONE PENTAGON report was wrong - he didn't say that ALL CIA reports were wrong - and YES, others DID come from the CIA.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

No, I'm not blaming Bush for the terrorist attacks in Spain. I am saying that by diverting our attention and resources to an uneccessary war and away from the real terrorists we've allowed al Quaeda to regroup and get stronger and that we haven't gained much in security from the Bush administration to date.

We've gained a WHOLE LOT of security from the Bush administration to date. In a January 2003 ( over a year ago ) Federal authorities said that more than 100 terrorist attacks planned against the United States and its allies had been thwarted since Sept. 11, 2001.
The revelation about the more than 100 planned attacks came in a legal declaration filed by Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I'm sure that more have been thwarted in the year since.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I blame him too, Ron...what makes you think I like Clinton? But you and many of the other right wingers I hear love to bring up Clinton's name, over and over and over again as if the only politics in town is Clinton vs conservatives. It's a case of hate the one you love. I've stated many times that the dems aren't much better than the Republicans. And, I have heard from a number news reports that the Saudi's have funded terrorism in the past and 9/11 as well.

Because you mention "the Bush's" specifically. You do NOT mention Clinton, you do NOT say "the presidents", you do NOT say the government - you only say "the Bush's". That's why I think that you like Clinton. You and other left-wingers love to avoid bringing up Clinton. And the Saudi's were funding terrorism during Clinton's adminstration MORE than they are now, under Bush. It should be obvious that if the Saudi's funded the 9/11 attacks then they did so under Clinton's watch - that plan could NOT have been planned, set up, and/or funded in the short time that Bush was in office.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yes, the Bush's have been playing footsie with unsavory types since about 1980. Read Kevin Phillips, he documents the whole rotten history.
Also, tell me why with Saudi Arabia having such a horrendous record of abuses against their own people, we are still friends with them.

Again, the Bush's but no Clintons. If Kevin Phillips documents the whole rotten history, how can he conveniently "skip" the eight year span of Clinton's administration?
We are still friends with Saudi Arabia for the same reason that we are friends with China. It's all about the Benjamins. But, you already knew that.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Ok, Ron...I"m listening...tell me how Aristede was elected...I hope it wasn't the same way Bush got SELECTED in 2000.

Just a few quotes from various news media, concerning the election of Aristide:

"Few foreign dignitaries attended the inauguration as a protest to the disputed election and failed negotiation with Convergence. The European Union has withheld nearly $50 million in aid in protest." Ref HERE

"Mr Aristide ran virutally unopposed last year when many opposition groups boycotted the election, accusing his Lavalas Party of fraud. Aristide was re-elected president on 26 November." Ref HERE

"Authorities of the Provisional Electoral Council said that 60.5 percent of the 4 million registered voters went to the polls on Sunday, but the opposition affirmed that it was only 5 percent. The low turnout was partly due to fears of violence.
Sunday's elections were overshadowed by a week of bomb explosions that killed two children. Authorities said the attacks were meant to intimidate electors." Ref HERE

Ron

03/13/2004 11:51:04 AM · #27

Originally posted by RonB:

Here's a couple of quotes from the first article you cited about Aristede:

"But some in Haiti are less than open to Aristide. Haiti's 15-party opposition alliance, the Convergence, believes Aristide won election through fraud; and the alliance has refused to recognize his presidency, according to press reports." (Key word here is BELIEVE...do you have proof that Aristede won elections through fraud? And who were the convergence?)

From the same article:
"The peaceful installation of Aristide as Haiti's president was a "victory for the democratic process in Haiti," as was Aristide's election, said Melinda Miles, who directs the Haiti Reborn project of the Hyattsville, Md.-based Quixote Center. (Key word here is PEACEFUL)

"The United States should see it," said Miles, "as a good development that offers us an opportunity to work with a popularly elected stable government." In reality, she said, "the U.S. government is not ready to work with Aristide, who has historically fought for rights of poor." (Key wording here is the US not ready to work with Aristede...I wonder why?)

"According to Miles, the Convergence has the support of many Republicans in the U.S. Congress through the party's overseas outreach, the International Republican Institute. (The Convergence had the support of Republicans in Congress? I wonder if they were the same ones that backed Papa and Baby Doc?)

"Having Republicans in power in the White House and Congress represents "enormous challenges for Aristide in working with the U.S. and international community," said Miles, "as well as Aristide having to live up to the expectations of the people who elected him." Haiti's economic situation is the poorest in the hemisphere.

"Aristide, a laicized priest, rose to fame in the mid-1980s with his fiery sermons criticizing the totalitarian Duvalier family regime. His homilies won the support of Haiti's impoverished minority. In 1990, he became Haiti's first democratically elected president."

Last paragraph...Aristede became Haiti's first DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ok, Ron...I"m listening...tell me how Aristede was elected...I hope it wasn't the same way Bush got SELECTED in 2000.

Just a few quotes from various news media, concerning the election of Aristide:

"Few foreign dignitaries attended the inauguration as a protest to the disputed election and failed negotiation with Convergence. The European Union has withheld nearly $50 million in aid in protest." Ref HERE

"Mr Aristide ran virutally unopposed last year when many opposition groups boycotted the election, accusing his Lavalas Party of fraud. Aristide was re-elected president on 26 November." Ref HERE

"Authorities of the Provisional Electoral Council said that 60.5 percent of the 4 million registered voters went to the polls on Sunday, but the opposition affirmed that it was only 5 percent. The low turnout was partly due to fears of violence.
Sunday's elections were overshadowed by a week of bomb explosions that killed two children. Authorities said the attacks were meant to intimidate electors." Ref HERE

Ron

texttext

03/13/2004 12:24:23 PM · #28

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bush-I gave a "wink and a nod" to Hussein to go invade Kuwait and both sides in the Iraq/Iran were both given weapons by the US.

You said that Saddam was not "any kind of a threat to any of his neighboring countries." I challenged that statement. How does this rebuttal support your claim? A common ruse by those who cannot or will not answer a challenge is to divert atttention elsewhere.

At the time of the war in Iraq last year (2003) Hussein was not a threat to any of his neighgors, or us. Did Bush-I give the wink and nod to Hussein to invade Kuwait back in the early 90's? Did the Reagan and Bush administrations not back both Iraq and Iran in their horrible 8 year war? Maybe it's you who's diverting attention elsewhere, like constantly bring up Clinton?

03/13/2004 12:33:02 PM · #29

I did not say that David Kay, nor Scott Ritter had no evidence. I said I don't know what evidence they do have. But they were both very firm, as were others, that Iraq, at the time of the Iraqi war had no wmd's or nuclear weapons program. What evidence did the Bush admin present to the UN that got their approval? Did you not hear that the US was spying on the UN diplomats of the security council so that they'd know who was not going to vote for war and so that they could pressure them? A snake in a yard is a totally different situation than mobilizing a country to go to war. Pre-emptive wars are a leaders paranoia.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't know what evidence David Kay had for saying what he did, but he's not alone as there were others who said the same, such as Scott Ritter. Now your logic can also be turned around...Did Bush see himself or know of any of Hussein's WMD's? Was there any concrete evidence presented by Bush for a case for war?

So David Kay had no evidence that you can quote. Thank you.
What evidence did Scott Ritter provide?
No, Bush did not see for himself, but he ( or at least his administration ) did provide evidence sufficient to get approval for an additional U.N. resolution and approval from the Congress to proceed with war planning, so if Bush believed the evidence, then he was not alone in his acceptance. If you see a poisonous snake in your backyard, would you wait for "concrete" evidence that it will attack your son or daughter, or would you believe the non-concrete evidence of what history teaches?

03/15/2004 09:13:49 AM · #30

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

[quote=RonB]

Here's a couple of quotes from the first article you cited about Aristede:

"But some in Haiti are less than open to Aristide. Haiti's 15-party opposition alliance, the Convergence, believes Aristide won election through fraud; and the alliance has refused to recognize his presidency, according to press reports." (Key word here is BELIEVE...do you have proof that Aristede won elections through fraud? And who were the convergence?)

From the same article:
"The peaceful installation of Aristide as Haiti's president was a "victory for the democratic process in Haiti," as was Aristide's election, said Melinda Miles, who directs the Haiti Reborn project of the Hyattsville, Md.-based Quixote Center. (Key word here is PEACEFUL)

"The United States should see it," said Miles, "as a good development that offers us an opportunity to work with a popularly elected stable government." In reality, she said, "the U.S. government is not ready to work with Aristide, who has historically fought for rights of poor." (Key wording here is the US not ready to work with Aristede...I wonder why?)

"According to Miles, the Convergence has the support of many Republicans in the U.S. Congress through the party's overseas outreach, the International Republican Institute. (The Convergence had the support of Republicans in Congress? I wonder if they were the same ones that backed Papa and Baby Doc?)

"Having Republicans in power in the White House and Congress represents "enormous challenges for Aristide in working with the U.S. and international community," said Miles, "as well as Aristide having to live up to the expectations of the people who elected him." Haiti's economic situation is the poorest in the hemisphere.

"Aristide, a laicized priest, rose to fame in the mid-1980s with his fiery sermons criticizing the totalitarian Duvalier family regime. His homilies won the support of Haiti's impoverished minority. In 1990, he became Haiti's first democratically elected president."

Last paragraph...Aristede became Haiti's first DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

[quote=Olyuzi]Ok, Ron...I"m listening...tell me how Aristede was elected...I hope it wasn't the same way Bush got SELECTED in 2000.

First of all, Please learn to use the QUOTE feature properly. The entire first section of your post incorrectly attributes statements to ME that I did not make ( all of the statements from "Here's a couple of quotes" through DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT ) - - in fact, those are YOUR statements.

Given that:

Your response proves three things:
1) You actually do access the links I provide. Thank you for that.
2) The links that I provide are not all right-wing biased links, as some have implied. Thank you for proving my objectivity.
3) You will believe what you WANT to and disregard the rest. I provided three links - you chose only the parts of ONE that you feel support your position. And that's fair.

Now. As to YOUR statements:

1) ...the Convergence believes...(Keyword here is BELIEVE):

Now, you believe ( keyword here is BELIEVE ) that Aristide was democratically elected. Why is YOUR BELIEF more credible than theirs? They were in Haiti. Where were you?
No, I do not have proof that Aristide was elected through fraud - any more than you have proof that he was NOT elected through fraud.
The Convergence was described in the same article, and in the quote you quoted - The Convergence is the 15-party opposition alliance.
In addition to the Convergence, there are many other entities that BELIEVE that the election was fraudulent:
"A wave of pre-election violence left at least 12 political figures dead, 11 of them linked to the opposition. Violent demonstrations destroyed shops, businesses and an opposition party headquarters. Political analysts in Haiti said it was aimed at either forcing the electoral commission to cancel the vote or frightening off would-be voters to clear the way for fraud." Ref HERE
"The Organisation of American States (OAS) has complained that the election went ahead with problems identified during legislative elections in May still not rectified." Ref HERE

2) The peaceful installation of Aristide...(Key word here is PEACEFUL):

If you really believe that "PEACEFUL" means "DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED", then you must STOP claiming that Bush was "SELECTED", since HE was "PEACEFULLY" installed as President of the U.S.

3) U.S. government is not ready to work with Aristide...(Key wording here is the US not ready to work with Aristede...I wonder why?)

Perhaps because the U.S. government, along with the OAS do not consider that Aristide was "democratically elected"?

4) (The Convergence had the support of Republicans in Congress? I wonder if they were the same ones that backed Papa and Baby Doc?)

You are certainly entitled to "wonder". But I "wonder" if it wasn't really the Democrats that backed Papa and Baby Doc. Wondering is just another liberal tactic that causes some to question what is being said. I could just as easily say "I wonder if Kerry has successfully kicked his cocaine habit"? I have NO basis for that statement, but if uttered in the right place, it could cause some to believe that he had a cocaine habit. Please make provide some logical connection when you make implications of this nature.

5) Last paragraph...Aristede became Haiti's first DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

You can lay claim to that legalese ONLY if you concede that George Bush IS our DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ( not SELECTED ) PRESIDENT.

Ron

03/15/2004 09:24:52 AM · #31

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So you don't know what evidence David Kay and Scott Ritter had. But they were "very firm" that Iraq, at the time of the Iraqi war had no wmd's or nuclear weapons program.
Well George Bush, Tony Blair and others were "very firm" that Iraq DID have wmd's. So what do we have? Two opposing factions, both of which were "very firm".
Why do you choose to believe one faction over the other when BOTH are "very firm"?

What evidence did the Bush Admin present to the U.N. to get their approval? Come on. Do the research. Colin Powell provided satellite images and recorded telephone conversations that showed that the Iraqis were moving banned weaponry around to avoid the U.N. inspectors. That's the evidence that was provided.

The U.S. was SPYING????? NOooooooo! I'm shocked! I didn't know that. I'll bet no other nation ever engages in that kind of information gathering. And for the purpose of pressuring others?. Tsk, Tsk. We should be ashamed of ourselves. ( that's sarcasm, in case you don't recognize it ).

Ron

03/15/2004 11:13:31 AM · #32

The point here is that Bush did have information saying that there were no wmd's from credible and reputable sources and he chose to rush off to war instead of taking a more prudent course of action like letting the UN weapons inspections continue. Many people wanted the inspections to continue and there was no immediate threat of Sadaam Hussein.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I did not say that David Kay, nor Scott Ritter had no evidence. I said I don't know what evidence they do have. But they were both very firm, as were others, that Iraq, at the time of the Iraqi war had no wmd's or nuclear weapons program. What evidence did the Bush admin present to the UN that got their approval? Did you not hear that the US was spying on the UN diplomats of the security council so that they'd know who was not going to vote for war and so that they could pressure them? A snake in a yard is a totally different situation than mobilizing a country to go to war. Pre-emptive wars are a leaders paranoia.

So you don't know what evidence David Kay and Scott Ritter had. But they were "very firm" that Iraq, at the time of the Iraqi war had no wmd's or nuclear weapons program.
Well George Bush, Tony Blair and others were "very firm" that Iraq DID have wmd's. So what do we have? Two opposing factions, both of which were "very firm".
Why do you choose to believe one faction over the other when BOTH are "very firm"?

Ron

03/15/2004 11:26:56 AM · #33

How were satellite pictures able to pick up something so small and if satellite pictures are so good at spoting things so small, then why can't they pick them up today? The recorded telephone conversations have been questioned in their translation and intelligiblity and if that evidence is anything like the evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN about the links between al Quaeda and Sadaam Hussein, then they were no evidence at all.

Originally posted by RonB:

What evidence did the Bush Admin present to the U.N. to get their approval? Come on. Do the research. Colin Powell provided satellite images and recorded telephone conversations that showed that the Iraqis were moving banned weaponry around to avoid the U.N. inspectors. That's the evidence that was provided.

Ron

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/15/2004 11:28:40 AM · #34

;) Gotcha! Thanks for the explainative.

Originally posted by RonB:

The U.S. was SPYING????? NOooooooo! I'm shocked! I didn't know that. I'll bet no other nation ever engages in that kind of information gathering. And for the purpose of pressuring others?. Tsk, Tsk. We should be ashamed of ourselves. ( that's sarcasm, in case you don't recognize it ).

Ron

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/15/2004 11:31:11 AM · #35

ron: If WMD were there, why didn't the inspectors find them and the UN support the 'war'?

Russell2566

03/15/2004 11:37:37 AM · #36

Originally posted by ellamay:

ron: If WMD were there, why didn't the inspectors find them and the UN support the 'war'?

Last time I checked, France Germany and Russia didn't count as THE UN. France even said they KNEW saddam had WMDs... They were only against the war because those countries had EMENSE investments into the country and tons and tons of money would be lost if there was a power shift/change in Iraq.

Don't fool your selfs, those in the UN that were against the war, were not against it because they didn't believe Iraq had WMDs...

03/15/2004 11:38:55 AM · #37

Originally posted by ellamay:

ron: If WMD were there, why didn't the inspectors find them and the UN support the 'war'?

If Saddam Hussein was there why did it take so long for the coalition forces t find him.

If Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan/Afghanistan, why haven't the coalition forces found him.

By your logic, Saddam didn't exist until we found him, and Osama bin Laden STILL doesn't exist ( otherwise we would have found him).

Sorry, the fact that we haven't found any wmd's doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Ron

03/15/2004 11:42:20 AM · #38

I agree with you completely here...When someone says something often enough, and in the right places at the right times, then their statements can cause people to believe it's true even without evidence...such as a link between al Quaeda and Hussein. Thanks for proving my point, Ron.

Originally posted by RonB:

You are certainly entitled to "wonder". But I "wonder" if it wasn't really the Democrats that backed Papa and Baby Doc. Wondering is just another liberal tactic that causes some to question what is being said. I could just as easily say "I wonder if Kerry has successfully kicked his cocaine habit"? I have NO basis for that statement, but if uttered in the right place, it could cause some to believe that he had a cocaine habit. Please make provide some logical connection when you make implications of this nature.

5) Last paragraph...Aristede became Haiti's first DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

You can lay claim to that legalese ONLY if you concede that George Bush IS our DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ( not SELECTED ) PRESIDENT.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/15/2004 11:44:21 AM · #39

Originally posted by RonB:

Sorry, the fact that we haven't found any wmd's doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Sorry, the fact that we haven't found any purple elephants in North Dakota doesn't mean they don't exist either.

Do you have a point at all ?

03/15/2004 11:54:42 AM · #40

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yes, the satellites ARE able to pick up something that small.
As in this Satellite Photo
They can't pick them up today because Saddam is gone and site sanitization is no longer occurring.
As for the telephone recordings: ANYTHING can be questioned - what's more important is WHO is doing the Questioning, and Why.

Ron

03/15/2004 11:58:45 AM · #41

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Sorry, the fact that we haven't found any wmd's doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Sorry, the fact that we haven't found any purple elephants in North Dakota doesn't mean they don't exist either.

Do you have a point at all ?

MY point is that it is generally accepted that Osama bin Laden exists, that we ARE looking for him, but that we have not yet found him.

I didn't know that anyone ( let alone WE ) were LOOKING for purple elephants in North Dakota.

So let me ask you - What's YOUR point?

Ron

03/15/2004 12:00:15 PM · #42

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Which point of yours did I prove?

Ron

Alexys

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/15/2004 12:03:27 PM · #43

IÂ´m not sure what is your discussion about, but IÂ´m sure you arenÂ´t talking about Spain and our Terrorist Attack, so, please, change the topic and start a new topic.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/15/2004 12:12:12 PM · #44

Unfortunately, I can't read every article you post, I haven't got the time, but I'm wondering if you read them.

Regarding one of the articles you posted below here's some quotes:
"The opposition in Haiti has accused the leading pro-government party of widescale election fraud...A painstaking counting of the vote has continued. Late on Sunday officials started counting ballot papers by candlelight after a high turnout in the local and parliamentary elections. In thousands of electoral offices across the country officials read out each and every ballot and held it up for the crowd to view before moving on to the next...The election was postponed three times in seven months before the international observers and the local electoral commission said it could go ahead...Reports from some parts of the country said almost every eligible Haitian cast their ballot - a remarkable result given that the participation rate was less than 10% in the previous election."

Here's some quotes about the violence referred to in the article:
"Opposition politicians had warned of possible violence, but reports from across the country said there were no serious incidents."

If the opposition new in advance about possible violence, then maybe they were the ones perpertrating it.

Another quote:
"Political analysts in Haiti said it was aimed at either forcing the electoral commission to cancel the vote or frightening off would-be voters to clear the way for fraud."

Sounds to me like the opposition in Haiti was trying to cause problems and the Haitian police did what they had to do in order to allow the elections to proceed.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
[quote=RonB]

Here's a couple of quotes from the first article you cited about Aristede:

"But some in Haiti are less than open to Aristide. Haiti's 15-party opposition alliance, the Convergence, believes Aristide won election through fraud; and the alliance has refused to recognize his presidency, according to press reports." (Key word here is BELIEVE...do you have proof that Aristede won elections through fraud? And who were the convergence?)

From the same article:
"The peaceful installation of Aristide as Haiti's president was a "victory for the democratic process in Haiti," as was Aristide's election, said Melinda Miles, who directs the Haiti Reborn project of the Hyattsville, Md.-based Quixote Center. (Key word here is PEACEFUL)

"The United States should see it," said Miles, "as a good development that offers us an opportunity to work with a popularly elected stable government." In reality, she said, "the U.S. government is not ready to work with Aristide, who has historically fought for rights of poor." (Key wording here is the US not ready to work with Aristede...I wonder why?)

"According to Miles, the Convergence has the support of many Republicans in the U.S. Congress through the party's overseas outreach, the International Republican Institute. (The Convergence had the support of Republicans in Congress? I wonder if they were the same ones that backed Papa and Baby Doc?)

"Having Republicans in power in the White House and Congress represents "enormous challenges for Aristide in working with the U.S. and international community," said Miles, "as well as Aristide having to live up to the expectations of the people who elected him." Haiti's economic situation is the poorest in the hemisphere.

"Aristide, a laicized priest, rose to fame in the mid-1980s with his fiery sermons criticizing the totalitarian Duvalier family regime. His homilies won the support of Haiti's impoverished minority. In 1990, he became Haiti's first democratically elected president."

Last paragraph...Aristede became Haiti's first DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

[quote=Olyuzi]Ok, Ron...I"m listening...tell me how Aristede was elected...I hope it wasn't the same way Bush got SELECTED in 2000.

Now. As to YOUR statements:

1) ...the Convergence believes...(Keyword here is BELIEVE):

Now, you believe ( keyword here is BELIEVE ) that Aristide was democratically elected. Why is YOUR BELIEF more credible than theirs? They were in Haiti. Where were you?
No, I do not have proof that Aristide was elected through fraud - any more than you have proof that he was NOT elected through fraud.
The Convergence was described in the same article, and in the quote you quoted - The Convergence is the 15-party opposition alliance.
In addition to the Convergence, there are many other entities that BELIEVE that the election was fraudulent:
"A wave of pre-election violence left at least 12 political figures dead, 11 of them linked to the opposition. Violent demonstrations destroyed shops, businesses and an opposition party headquarters. Political analysts in Haiti said it was aimed at either forcing the electoral commission to cancel the vote or frightening off would-be voters to clear the way for fraud." Ref HERE
"The Organisation of American States (OAS) has complained that the election went ahead with problems identified during legislative elections in May still not rectified." Ref HERE

Ron

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/15/2004 12:12:36 PM · #45

Sorry a berenguer, the forum not more specific to spain. What has occured is a great tragedy, and I am sure all of us on either side of this 'war/terrorist' debate hearts go out to those who have been lost and injured and their families. I think the tie in for me at least, is what world circumstances will create more terrorist attacks and what if anything we can do to prevent future tragedies like this.

03/15/2004 12:16:36 PM · #46

Did anyone here that Spain voted out the incumbent president in favor of the socialist party?

AND...Aristede is returning to the Caribbean. He's now flying to Jamaica.

Message edited by author 2004-03-15 12:25:49.

Russell2566

03/15/2004 12:54:22 PM · #47

Thats lovely for Spain.

They are pulling out of Iraq because Al-Qaeda attacked them for having troops there... Talking about apeasing terrorists and giving into their demands. Now they will be even more bolsterd, knowing that they can attack countries trying to snuff them out and get them to back off...

Oh ya, if Al-Qaeda has no aliances with Saddam or Iraq, why would they blow up 4 trains in Spain to try and get them to pull out???

Al-Qaeda is claiming the Spanish Election as a victory for THEM THE TERRORIST... Good job Spain....

Message edited by author 2004-03-15 13:17:30.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/15/2004 01:21:03 PM · #48

Originally posted by RonB:

[quote=Gordon] [quote=RonB]
Sorry, the fact that we haven't found any wmd's doesn't mean they didn't exist.

MY point is that it is generally accepted that Osama bin Laden exists, that we ARE looking for him, but that we have not yet found him.

I didn't know that anyone ( let alone WE ) were LOOKING for purple elephants in North Dakota.

So let me ask you - What's YOUR point?

Ron

Just noticing that the fact that no WMD have been found, or any evidence to support it, is not, in of itself, any proof one way or the other.

Just because the US said that they were there, doesn't mean they ever existed, in much the same way as the fact that the invading forces not being able to find anything, doesn't prove that they've been hidden really well.

03/15/2004 01:55:17 PM · #49

What foreign intelligence agencies? You mean Great Britain's? We know how reliable they've turned out to be. Now if the US gov't and the intelligence community was left so bad off by Clinton when he left office, as has been said many times by rightwingers, then why did Bush heed those reports when he should have known better, given how poorly clinton left the state of the military and intelligence?

What planned attacks were thrawrted since 9/11? Can you give specifics, like who was involved, newspaper articles?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What reports are these and who put them out??? I haven't heard about any of them. If your top CIA man is telling you that a report is wrong and you go against what he says, you have an agenda and you choose to listen to whomever you want. If there exists other reports, they didn't come from the CIA, your top intelligence agency.

Those reports came from foreign intelligence agencies and other agencies of the U.S. government. And, surely, you have heard of them - they were cited in the President's speeches, as well as those of Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and others in the administration. The top CIA man said that ONE PENTAGON report was wrong - he didn't say that ALL CIA reports were wrong - and YES, others DID come from the CIA.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
No, I'm not blaming Bush for the terrorist attacks in Spain. I am saying that by diverting our attention and resources to an uneccessary war and away from the real terrorists we've allowed al Quaeda to regroup and get stronger and that we haven't gained much in security from the Bush administration to date.

We've gained a WHOLE LOT of security from the Bush administration to date. In a January 2003 ( over a year ago ) Federal authorities said that more than 100 terrorist attacks planned against the United States and its allies had been thwarted since Sept. 11, 2001.
The revelation about the more than 100 planned attacks came in a legal declaration filed by Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I'm sure that more have been thwarted in the year since.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I blame him too, Ron...what makes you think I like Clinton? But you and many of the other right wingers I hear love to bring up Clinton's name, over and over and over again as if the only politics in town is Clinton vs conservatives. It's a case of hate the one you love. I've stated many times that the dems aren't much better than the Republicans. And, I have heard from a number news reports that the Saudi's have funded terrorism in the past and 9/11 as well.

Ron