Liz Cheney Seems to Prefer “Stacked Deck” Elections When it Comes to Palestine

-

huffington liz cheney.jpgGeorge W. Bush said both before and after the Palestine elections of 2006 that they were the fairest and most well run elections held in the Middle East outside of Israel.
“The people made their choice,” Bush said.
Now, Liz Cheney — who was a senior official at the Department of State at the time of those elections — is saying that the Palestinians weren’t ready for the elections and that they were a mistake.
She revealed this in a testy exchange with Arianna Huffington.
I guess elections are only good if one gets the stacked deck outcome that neocons want.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

12 comments on “Liz Cheney Seems to Prefer “Stacked Deck” Elections When it Comes to Palestine

  1. jon says:

    I was shocked that Bush and the Israelis pushed so hard for those
    elections. I suppose they thought that a Fatah win was inevitable,
    and they would have a more docile partner to work with. From
    accounts at the time, the results seemed to shock Hamas as well.
    But this seems to be an indication of people’s disgust with the
    corruption and ineffectiveness of Fatah dominated governance.
    With Fatah controlling the West bank there is an explosion of new
    settlement construction and land takings, the security wall built,
    and further restrictions on the movements of Palestinians and their
    access to work.

    Reply

  2. Mr.Murder says:

    scales of balance***** It took like fiteen minute to load TWN here, missed the typo from not being able to scroll function for the better part of that comment.

    Reply

  3. Mr.Murder says:

    The deck may be stacked there, but the slaces of balance are tipped here:
    “Thirty-seven of the 64 active or senior judges in key Gulf Coast districts in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida have links to oil, gas and related energy industries, including some who own stocks or bonds in BP PLC, Halliburton or Transocean

    Reply

  4. David says:

    I disagree about the flotilla, questions, because Israel was not going to do anything but continue to cause Gazans to suffer, and the United States was not going to do anything to stop it. The consequences have to do with Israel’s violent default position and America’s inability to do much about it, or about the settlements in the Occupied Territories. The status quo is untenable, which Obama has actually said. I do agree that the terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis has created terrible states of mind, as have Israeli attacks against Palestinians.
    The Freedom Riders were met with violence, but they had to take those rides. And someone had to sail against what Israel is doing to Gaza. You can question particulars of the ride, and I do, but mostly I question Israel because it is Israel which reacted violently, as did Southern government agencies against civil rights activists. I do not know how well the template fits, because I do not know about this flotilla the way I knew about civil rights in the South, namely up close and very personal (I was born in 1942, a central Floridian until I went to graduate school in New Jersey in 1965).
    Your description of BP and business dynamics, especially what is rational in the absence of effective government regulation, is dead on. That is exactly what happens to a company that adheres to safe practice in an environment in which safe practice is not enforced, and enforced with very serious consequences for violaters, both fines which inflict real economic pain and jail time for intentional conduct which causes real harm, in this case negligent homicide re the rig workers who were killed and ecocide re the Gulf of Mexico.
    But BP was, and still is, simply seeking to externalize every cost possible and maximize profits within the context in which oil corporations operate world-wide. We are noticing only because it is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, not along the coast of Nigeria.
    I will check out the Baudelaire piece and Derrida’s discussion. Thanks for the suggestion.
    I’m a fan of the Truth-o-sphere, which makes things a bit trickier, but over time one can usually ferret out reasonable approximations of what is true and what is not, so long as there are no ideological blinders. I can best be described as a humanist, but not someone who adheres to any strict catechism for humanism. I think humans with reasonably well developed intellects, as comprehensive a body of relevant facts as can be garnered, and a visceral distaste for pat answers, can discover really interesting aspects of reality, and do so reasonably reliably. I do not think ideologues can, no matter their level of intellect. Thus I think we have had respect-worthy supreme court justices like Brennan, Stevens, and Souter, and going back one of the most intriguing jurists, Learned Hand. But we also get ideologues like Scalia, who demonstrate what is wrong with a strong intellect trapped in a narrow ideology, or Jonathan Edwards, a minister with a powerful intellect utterly trapped in a terribly misguided sectarian ideology. People like Brennan try to fit their thinking to real humans in the real world, whereas ideologues try to force humanity into their quite narrow ideological world. A justice’s position on a woman’s right to choose is all one needs to know to figure out which description fits that justice. Prior to that it would have been suffrage, and then integration.

    Reply

  5. ... says:

    on come on questions… now you want to lay the blame for israel bringing us to the 3 rd world war because of the free gaza movement??????????? geez… do you think israel might have had something to do with it? duh.. set up a prison camp and not allow chocolate bars and etc in and think folks are supposed to now believe the free gaza movement led to israel starting the 3rd world war?????? i think it is best to not say such stupid stuff here as it makes you look crazy..

    Reply

  6. DonS says:

    OT – “We need regulation that is effective and not corrupt. And we need fines and other punishments nasty enough to deter the behavior in the first place.” (questions)
    we agree

    Reply

  7. questions says:

    Nothing contrarian.
    A strong desire for very strong, very effective, non-corrupt, non-corruptible REGULATION to stop this shit. Whether or not we can get there is an entirely different problem. The experts will ALWAYS be industry insiders. The money will always be industry money.
    Criminal and robber baron is what there is without effective oversight and guarding the guardians. And it’s perfectly rational behavior in the context in which it happened. If anyone else even MIGHT break the law, you don’t want to be the sap who obeys.
    I have no context for your 97% number, and without context it’s meaningless. How many refineries were inspected, how complete is the report….
    And even if BP is an outlier, it is a structurally rational kind of outlierdom.
    We need regulation that is effective and not corrupt. And we need fines and other punishments nasty enough to deter the behavior in the first place. Once it’s not rational, they don’t do it (with many qualifications for behavioral econ insights).
    That’s all.

    Reply

  8. DonS says:

    “It’s rational for a corp to take cost cutting steps whenever they can. They’re not in business to be humane” (questions)
    Boy, you can say that again, mon contrarian:
    “Two refineries owned by oil giant BP account for 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors over the past three years, a Center for Public Integrity analysis shows. Most of BP

    Reply

  9. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Stacked decks are the only way to go and have been in many instances from long ago, not just for Palestine…anyone remember whe Eisenhower canceled the UN Observed election in Vietnam because Ho Chu Minh was going to win by 85%, for example? Just sayin…

    Reply

  10. Don Bacon says:

    George W. Bush should have known that elections don’t work by simply remembering how he got into office, after which Americans realized they weren’t ready for a criminal president.

    Reply

  11. questions says:

    Haven’t been posting here in ages, much to POA’s delight, but this one I’m gonna take on.
    There’s been a huge amount of leftosphere blogging on this issue, and there seems to be a high probability that the EXIF dates are incorrect. They reset to mfg. date when the battery dies or is removed, and they stay there unless someone changes them. One of the dates is apparently for a time before the camera was available for sale….
    Please don’t swallow every damned leftosphere blog claim before anyone really knows anything. The story is unfolding, and deeply uncertain. And there’s a good chance that no one really KNOWS what happened anyway. Read up on witnessing events. It’s really eye-opening what we see and don’t see, how we can be manipulated into “knowing” all kinds of stuff. (See Kahnemann and Tversky, et al.)
    There’s a Turkish passenger around somewhere who has released video at least half-confirming that the Israelis were actually attacked. Note, this is from a TURKISH passenger. I don’t have a link handy, but the NYT or WaPo probably had the story since I read those this morning.
    So far the best explanation (not excuse, mind you) is a structural one.
    The two sides pushed one another in quite structurally-to-be-expected ways. They behaved “rationally” given their positions and the worst happened.
    We’re not miles away in structure from the BP mess, come to think of it.
    It’s rational for a corp. to take cost-cutting steps whenever it can. They’re not in business to be humane. Externalizing as much cost as possible and grabbing as much profit as possible is rational and it’s what happens. If BP becomes the sucker or sap with a great voluntary safety record, then it gets crowded out of the market by any company that doesn’t take the same safety measures. This is merely a version of the prisoner’s dilemma, and it’s THE central justification for governmental regulation. We need help out of our prisoner’s dilemmas, and we need to do it collectively or we shall all be oil covered separately.
    Regarding I/P, again, each side did the rational non-communicative reasonable thing, and the prisoner’s dilemma bit them. Ouch. Bit some dead, caused a huge international mess that might spiral out of control. Destabilization is always risky. Causing events is risky.
    (I recommend to anyone who wants, read Baudelaire’s very short story, “Counterfeit Coin”. It’s discussed by Derrida in _Given Time_ and it’s all about causing an event in someone else’s life. Two pages worth reading.)
    What we really need to be doing is trying to figure out how to deal with HIGH COST low probability events where paying for them NOW might be really dumb.
    AND what we need to be doing for I/P is not driving the traumatized crazed Israeli population further to the right. I’ve pointed this out here numerous times. The flotilla was a bad idea at this level of challenge. Far better to use a thousand rowboats with one or two unarmed brave souls and one rose per boat. There can be no argument against that.
    If Paul’s note that Iran is getting involved is true, this is really fucked for the world. Thanks Free Gaza. You got your event. And maybe you’ve externalized the costs to a whole bunch of other people.
    Watch out for events. Sometimes they bite back.
    (and now back to radio silence. I read a whole lot more (Connected (on network theory), and Animal Spirits by Akerlof are in the works, and life is more peaceful without the two very bizarre posts here in recent weeks.)
    (and I note happily that both Josh Marshall at TPM and Steve Clemons have taken occasional steps to intervene in some of the comment sections without censoring. it’s been quite pleasant to see. thanks.)

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, Fox News actually admits “elections” put Hamas in power?
    Usually those sacks of shit use terminolgy like “when Hamas gained control”, or “Hamas, a terrorist organization, took control of Gaza….”.
    Of course, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians had no influence on Hamas winning the election, eh?
    And heres an example of the moral and ethical conduct that Israel has, that seem to be in accordance to the “values” of Liz Cheney and this simpering fool Cordesman…..
    http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/idf-released-several-faked-photos-%e2%80%93-how-can-they-be-trusted-in-any-investigation/
    IDF Released Several Faked Photos

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *