Tuesday, March 21, 2006

The White House Demands A Recount(!)

The White House has strongly rejected the victory of incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko in Sunday’s elections in Belarus (bella-ruce), and has suggested sanctions may be on the way for that country.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said, “The United States does not accept the results of the election,” and pointed out that in addition to violence, election-related fraud occurred.

What, now they suddenly have a problem with questionable election results?

Lukashenko’s government is accused of intimidation, false imprisonment and human rights abuses, among other offenses. Opposition groups and independent media are not tolerated by his regime.

How can Bush object to an election under those conditions? He’s practiced all of the same policies at some point during his term of office.

If Bush truly objects to the Belarussian election results, perhaps he can get his handpicked Supreme Court to nullify them. It wouldn’t be the first time he’s called in a favor from that court after an election.

The fact that the US government doesn’t have legal authority to undo a foreign election shouldn’t be seen as an impediment. It didn't stop us in Chile or Venezuela, for example. And illegal actions at home and abroad are the modus operandi of our current administration.

10 comments:

Jack K. said...

Pete :-)

Here is one I just came across. You know, when the time is right, you things cross your path that you have to make a choice about. So I am suggesting you might want to check this one out: Namaste'

It fits to this posting.

Pete Bogs said...

thanks for the link... that Maher quote is brilliant! and the church taking over the space program segues very well into tomorrow's blog....

Karen said...

"If Bush truly objects to the Belarussian election results, perhaps he can get his handpicked Supreme Court to nullify them"...

You are *spot on* with that remark!! :-)

OIC jack recommended me... cool!

Thanks for stoppin' by my place, pete. I will return!

Pete Bogs said...

thanks Karen (and Jack)... it's hypocritical for Bush to criticize questionable elections and heavyhanded tactics when his presidency has been defined by them... I have no love for this Belarussian guy, however...

fatty ~ said...

"i dont see whay we should let a country go Communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people."

kissingers comment on US Latin America policy in the 70s is echoed here.

Hellpig said...

Bogs I agree with you about the elections.But your comment about hand picked Justices is hipocritical, seeing that Clinton also had 2 appointed as well,and they too were hand picked.BTW it is the Presidents job to hand pick the Justices,They have been doing it since Washington's administration that's just one of the perks of being "ELECTED" lol

ffff said...

I wish to raise my objection to the American's choice of democratically elected President on the grounds that it was a fake vote because only a minority of people voted at all and only the majority of the minority voted for him and one of the elections was suspect.

There, that should do it!

(BTW I have yet to find one thing on your blog that I can disagree with. Fab reading!)

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

yeah. yeah. i read the transcript at namaste'.
bill maher's schtick is like being force fed cod liver oil daily. whatever occasionally correct remark he might stumble onto, to endure his pissy looking face and endless whine isn't worth it. he reminds me of a school marm but he thinks he's all controversial and edgy. Never runs that bitter rant on the DNC for running a chump like sKerry. It's not brave or even counterculture for an entertainer to rag on Bush. dime o dozen. tired. spent. bore. dennis miller was better.

can't wait for tomorrows blog pete! church and space? i think scientology already has that market cornered, don't it?

hope you and guiness had a beautiful SPD together. Did you take triumph on your pub rounds? I'll backtrack the posts i missed. good to see ya!

/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Pete Bogs said...

aka - yep, quite an arrogant statement, that... yet Kissinger is looked upon as hero by many... it's documented that he knew of Pinochet's human rights record and sought to downplay because he knew Congress would clobber the Nixon administration about it...

hell - I know, one of the perks of office... all Supreme Courts are handpicked in that sense... Bush made his picks not to uphold the Constitution but to change the direction of the country to backwards...

ali - do carry on! ;-)

k9 - nice to see you again, but sorry to disappoint you about tomorrow's blog... I may put that off depending on how I feel about a subject that's just come up... and it's really about space, not church... SPD was good... no dogs allowed, though... grrrrrr... only service dogs

fatty ~ said...

hehe - i'm researching chile and kissinger for my major historiography essay - i know well.