Forbidden Donut

President Bush endorsed John McCain even before Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race. It was back in 2005 at an International Republican Institute (IRI) dinner. President Bush introduced John McCain as an “outstanding” IRI board chairman and as “a man of honor and integrity, and great personal courage.”

McCain has served as board chairman since 1993. During the past fifteen years, under the cover of spreading democracy and a free market economic system, the IRI has helped install governments friendly to the United States and undermined others.

Despite its reputation for destabilizing popularly elected governments, McCain touts his experience in the IRI as an example of what he would do if elected President. “Given my decades of involvement in promoting democratic values, it is safe to assume that I will remain a supporter of legitimate democracy-building groups,” McCain told The Arizona Republic.

Formed in 1983 during the Reagan Administration, the IRI is funded almost entirely by U.S. tax dollars to the tune of $75 million a year, with the money being disbursed through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Big business, lobbying groups, and foundations gave more than $1 million to the IRI in 2006, while individuals donated a total of $200,000.

The IRI calls itself a “nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to advancing freedom and democracy worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, good governance, and the rule of law.”

But created at a time when CIA covert action in Central America was coming under increasing scrutiny, the IRI has undertaken some of the supplementary tasks the CIA traditionally performed.

And while the IRI portrays itself as nonpartisan, a quick look at the IRI website establishes that while it is not legally under the Republican Party, in practice it is indistinguishable from it. The group is an amalgam of businesspeople, party stalwarts, and neocons.

Corporate donors to the IRI include UPS, AT&T, Coca-Cola, Blackwater, Anheuser-Busch, Bell-South, Chevron, ExxonMobil Foundation, and BP. The Associated Press reports that many donor companies regularly lobby on the types of issues handled by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where McCain is the number two Republican.

On the board of directors, you also find Paul Bremer III, the former viceroy of Iraq; Alison B. Fortier, the director of Lockheed Martin missile defense programs; and John F. W. Rogers, managing director of Goldman Sachs. Another board member, Frank Fahrenkopf, was the chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1983 to 1989. He is also the president and chief executive officer of the American Gaming Association. To date, McCain has received more than $100,000 from the gaming industry, as per opensecrets.org.

But that’s not the only financial overlap between the IRI and McCain’s Presidential campaign. McCain’s political action committee raised at least $392,000 from IRI donor companies and their employees since January 2005. His presidential campaign has collected another $670,000 from institute donors.

Key advisers to McCain have been on the IRI board, too. Randy Scheun<3<3<3emann, who drafted the Iraq Liberation Act (McCain was a co-sponsor of the bill), also was on the board of the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative outfit that argued for overthrowing Saddam in the 1990s. Scheunemann is a foreign policy adviser to McCain.

According to its website, the IRI at first “focused on planting the seeds of democracy in Latin America [but] since the end of the Cold War, has broadened its reach to support democracy and freedom around the globe [and] has conducted programs in more than 100 countries and is currently active in 72 countries.” As McCain told The New Republic, “We were all intoxicated by the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of its empire.”

The IRI engages in what it calls the “consolidation of democracy.” That is, it facilitates the coming together of splintered opposition parties, churches, human rights organizations, worker unions, women’s organizations, and student groups.

Sometimes, as in some former Soviet republics, the IRI seems to support reformists, albeit those with a free market orientation. In the Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, the IRI-backed candidate, defeated Viktor Yanukovich, who was representing decrepit Soviet-style authoritarianism.

But IRI activities in Latin American countries such as Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela are more controversial. In Haiti in 2002 and 2003, the IRI helped consolidate the opposition to the democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide. “Several of the people who had attended IRI trainings were influential in the toppling of Aristide,” reports Mother Jones. The U.S. ambassador to Haiti at the time even suggested that the IRI was instrumental in Aristide’s downfall.

In 2002, then-IRI president George Folsom applauded the failed Venezuelan coup against President Hugo Chavez. “Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country,” he said in a statement released by the IRI while the coup was still under way.

Not expecting the coup to fail, he went on to proudly claim that the IRI “has served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future.” He boasted: “We stand ready to continue our partnership with the courageous Venezuelan people.”

Last November, the IRI gave its “Freedom Award” to Tony Saca, the president of El Salvador. In taped remarks, McCain said, “El Salvador’s politics and economy have been transformed. Today, former guerrillas are free to stand peacefully for public office, and economic growth is gradually eroding poverty.” But fifteen years after the civil war ended, economic and political problems linger. Corruption is rampant. San Salvador’s archbishop recently said the social conditions that gave way to the civil war remain. Activists who are organizing against Saca’s neoliberal economic policies face riot cops and charges of terrorism under new laws that criminalize public protest.

IRI board member Richard S. Williamson presented the award to Saca and recalled President Ronald Reagan’s policies in Latin America.

“Back then, the front line in the march to freedom was Central America,” said Williamson. “I remember those close vote counts, in the early ’80s, when Ronald Reagan was going against the majority in Congress who didn’t want to support the freedom fighters in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. Fortunately, he prevailed, and twenty-five years later El Salvador is a beacon of freedom.”

The IRI also conducts polls in high-stakes situations that it can skew to create a public and political consensus around a desired outcome. A “secret poll” conducted in Cuba found that “77 percent of Cubans want a new system of elections,” “83 percent of Cubans believe changes to a more market-based economy would improve their daily lives,” and “79 percent of Cubans do not believe the current government can fix the problems facing the country.”

The first thing, of course, is that a secret poll cannot be verified. And secondly, it sharply contradicts other polls. A January 2007 Gallup poll found that 40 percent of Cubans disapproved of the Cuban government while 47 percent approved. The Gallup poll also noted that 75 percent of Cubans approved of their health care system and 78 percent of their education system.

In Iraq, the IRI has conducted polls, too. It asks such questions as: Do you prefer to change government through peaceful and fair elections, fair and public trials, and no arbitrary arrest or detention? Most people in any culture and under most circumstances would favor not being tortured or being arrested arbitrarily.

What is missing in the IRI polls are hard questions such as: Has the American occupation been good? How long should U.S. troops stay? According to a Program on International Policy Attitudes poll in September 2006, 71 percent of Iraqis favored a U.S. troop withdrawal within a year, and 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S. forces.

As board chairman, McCain says he has been a hands-on manager. “All board members are involved in determining where IRI will work and in overseeing those activities,” he told The Arizona Republic.

McCain denies that the IRI has toppled any government. His critics say he bears a responsibility to investigate allegations of meddling in other countries.

If the so-called maverick becomes President in 2009, McCain will have some trust issues in international gatherings from day one. As the IRI board chairman, he has already shown his hand.

Jul 16, 2004 | On Feb. 8, 2001, the federally funded International Republican Institute's (IRI) senior program officer for Haiti, Stanley Lucas, appeared on the Haitian station Radio Tropicale to suggest three strategies for vanquishing Haiti's president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. First, Lucas proposed forcing Aristide to accept early elections and be voted out; second, he could be charged with corruption and arrested; and finally, Lucas raised dealing with Aristide the way the Congolese people had dealt with President Laurent Kabila the month before. "You did see what happened to Kabila?" Lucas asked his audience.

Kabila had been assassinated.

I'm starting to get the sense that my "Vote for McCain" plans are in the minority on this forum.

On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

Do you guys think about Obama when you jerk-off?

Because it sure sounds like it.

I bet those who are eligible to vote already know who they're voting for. Despite preaching and listening about all this change and hope, Democrats will still vote down their party lines and Republicans will still vote down their party lines. I don't think there's anything you can say, quote, or reference that will convince people otherwise. Instead of trying to convince others to change their votes, these types of threads make it look like you're trying to convince yourselves that Obama is the right choice.

Do you guys think about Obama when you jerk-off?

Because it sure sounds like it.

I bet those who are eligible to vote already know who they're voting for. Despite preaching and listening about all this change and hope, Democrats will still vote down their party lines and Republicans will still vote down their party lines. I don't think there's anything you can say, quote, or reference that will convince people otherwise. Instead of trying to convince others to change their votes, these types of threads make it look like you're trying to convince yourselves that Obama is the right choice.

Do you guys think about Obama when you jerk-off?

Because it sure sounds like it.

I bet those who are eligible to vote already know who they're voting for. Despite preaching and listening about all this change and hope, Democrats will still vote down their party lines and Republicans will still vote down their party lines. I don't think there's anything you can say, quote, or reference that will convince people otherwise. Instead of trying to convince others to change their votes, these types of threads make it look like you're trying to convince yourselves that Obama is the right choice.

I talk about it because I still hear veterans saying they'll vote for McCain because he was a POW. Despite the fact that he has declined on the opportunity to help pass bills that give veterans better care when they get home. I talk about it because I still hear women saying they'll vote for McCain because Obama was so mean to Hillary, despite the fact that McCain has voted Pro-Life consistently for the last 8 years (when his body was inhabited by pod people).

I'll continue spewing pieces of information as long as people continue spewing ignorance of said information.

As an added note: you're a jackass. Let's cancel the debates too since everyone already knows who they are voting for. Based on policies. In fact, we can just count people's party affiliations every 10 years when we do the census and use that info to elect a king and parliament in line with the party in power. I know a pretty small group of people who talk openly about politics, and amongst them I know 4 self identified republicans and 7 self identified democrats. I'm related to one of each. Both are voting for Obama, and I'd like to think that it has something to do with discussions we've had. So you can shove your hopelessness right up your ass. This is the politics board and following politics is a hobby of mine. I picked my candidate based on a number of things and though my sig might make me look like an "Obamaton" or an "Obamaniac" I do know some stuff about some stuff.

Now: Why does McCain deserve my vote? Seriously, if you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I'm willing to hear it out.

PS: The empty-suit-hope-change talking point is played out. Find something new. He has policy positions and you're just displaying your ignorance of what they are.

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

As a nation, Iranians are among the few in the world that still like the U.S. As a revolution, however, Iran is the principal bastion of anti-Americanism. Last month, Tehran hosted an international conference titled "A World Without America." Indeed, since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has returned to a more acute state of revolutionary hysteria. Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to truly believe the "Hidden Imam" is coming to conquer the world for his brand of Islam. He does not appear to be interested in the kind of "carrots" that Secretary Rice was offering two years ago and Mr. Obama is hinting at today.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans."

For example, the U.S. and its partners are reported to have called for:

“Support for a new conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional security issues.”

“Improving Iran’s access to the international economy, markets and capital, through practical support for full integration into international structures, including the WTO, and to create the framework for increased direct investment in Iran and trade with Iran....”

The following are the elements of a proposal to Iran as approved on 1 June 2006 at the meeting in Vienna of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the Unites States, and the European Union:

I don't recall there being many veterans on this board -- and there's what, maybe three women here as well? Maybe I am a jackass, I just feel like your wasting your breath when you guys share all this Obama information because this board is heavily Dem to begin with. Kinda like you're preaching to the choir.

I thought the political discussions were interesting at the beginning of the primary season because there were so many candidates and nobody knew who was who -- but now that we're down to two and 99% of America already knows who they're voting for.

When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit Israel?
---I won't believe anybody who says Iran has nukes after the fiasco in Iraq.
When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit America?
---We're friends with Russia /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Amazing what talking to people you were terrified of can do right?
When Iran can sell biological/chemical/nuclear weapons to terrorists groups?
---Terrorists have a beef with us because of our history of over-aggressive foreign policy. If you feel threatened by terrorists, then you should denounce the policies that caused the threat.

I'm tired of the politics of fear. I'm not going to be scared into any sort of policy position again. That's not to say that there is NO point at which we should take action, but if the rationale behind taking action is to make us safer here at home, then I'd want 2 things.
1) confirmation (not speculation) that the country has the ability to devastate us here at home
2) indication from the people with the power to carry out the attack that they intend to attack US.
period.

edit b/c my example was stupid =\

I guess I'll ask you to use your criteria to assess when the US should have addressed Hitler.

yeah when we did was fine, but i dont think his standards would have allowed for it

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who as Iran's supreme leader is commander in chief of the Iranian military, predicted last week that terrorists would acquire nuclear weapons and "take away security from all the tyrants of the world."

In his speech at the tomb of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei made it clear that he understood America to be the leader among "the tyrants of the world."

"The Iranian nation is against such weapons based on its religious and Islamic beliefs as well as based on logic and wisdom. Nuclear weapons have no benefit but high costs to manufacture and keep them," he said, according to the BBC translation. "Nuclear weapons do not bring power to a nation because they are not applicable. Nuclear weapons cannot be used."

A moment later he added, "Before long, the world's terrorists will have access to nuclear weapons and take away security from all the tyrants of the world and all the nations of the world."

Obama spelled out his position on talks with Iran. He said: “I will do everything in my power – everything, everything - to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Iran has grown stronger and increased its support for terror since this administration went to war in Iraq “and I refuse to support a policy that has made the US and Israel less secure.”

Proposing getting US troops out of Iraq “carefully”, Obama urged broaching Iran first with “aggressive principles and diplomacy. We have no time to waste. I would keep the military option on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” he stressed.”

Proposing getting US troops out of Iraq “carefully”, Obama urged broaching Iran first with “aggressive principles and diplomacy. We have no time to waste. I would keep the military option on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” he stressed.”

In an interview, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said: “I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it.”

“We have to rebuild a national Iraqi army, not built on sects, but the same way they built up the Anbar police,” he said. “They must be well-armed, so they will be able to protect the country and all the American interests in the area. We also have to make a friendship treaty based on mutual respect between the two parties, and then the United States will be able to withdraw from Iraq, if they wish, and we will succeed in Iraq the same way America succeeded in Japan and Germany.”

The Anbari sheik offered no comment on the details of the current negotiations on the American troop presence in Iraq between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, saying he was not involved in the negotiations. But he also said he favored such a status-of-forces agreement. “With a diplomatic understanding we will be able to solve all the problems. We fully trust the Americans. We know the United States never in its history occupied a country. On the contrary, they were occupied and they were able to fight the occupier,” he said, referring to the American rebellion against the British in 1776.

Here is Barack Obama’s record on rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.

* Sept. 2, 2005: Obama holds press conference urging Illinoisans to contribute to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
* Sept. 5, 2005: Obama goes to Houston to visit evacuees with Presidents Clinton and Bush.
* Sept. 7, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a national emergency family locator system
* Sept. 8, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a National Emergency Volunteers Corps.
* Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Harry Reid
* Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Russ Feingold
...
...etc