Hatari Says: Makozewe, yes Cord is seeking documents which should be publicly available to any citizen but this should compliment or strengthen the evidence currently in their possession. Since CORD is on record stating they have evidence of rigging, why not table this evidence in the High Court and thereby giving more credibility to their allegation? The IEBC would then have no other opinion than to open up their records pende wasipende to scrutiny by all interested parties. This is not twisting the issue but really simple logic the Kenyan electorate would appreciate, understand and would be sympathetic too . As it stands, any one who is impartial sees the glaring contradictions in their statements and actions.
Makozewe: Hatari, let us take a hypothetical situation. If I now request IEBC for the same documents Cord is seeking as a citizen of the Republic of Kenya under the freedom of Information Act contained in our new Constitution, the implication is that if Cord cannot get them then I too cannot. This is a violation. As you say, Cord should produce evidence but when dealing with the figures IEBC tallied, Cord has to compare IEBC’s figures with figures Cord agents gathered at polling station. If Cord tallies its figures at the polling station level, the difference is a whooping 700,000 votes and this is why it is incumbent for IEBC to produce figures it used to tally votes at the polling station level. This is not a big demand or a request for “evidence” from IEBC. If IEBC cannot be transparent at this basic level, it will be impossible for the public not to suspect that IEBC is hiding something. If Cord was asking for confidential documents, then IEBC’s current position could be tenable. As it is at the moment, it amounts to a cover up. Should Cord go to court to obtain documents which anybody (including the media) is entitled to? Something is wrong.
Have your say…
About the Author
IEBC/is led by very suspicious character (Hassan) their boss is a Somali clan very corrupt people in Kenya and marginalized communities of NFD of Kenya The colonial govt and Kenya govt continued marginalizing Somalis and committing Massacres(Wagalla& kibish).Somalis in Kenya survives on Corruption and During Samola Mashels Of Mozambique Would not allow any Somali in Maputo hence Corruption using their Heavy transport trucks Dominated by Somalis to this day. In Southern Sudan (Juba) Somalis are not allowed inside Southern Somali and in Kenya Somali can only Fit and work (do business with a Kikuyu hence both tribes are corrupt) Hassan credibility is questionable .
Thats why they killed Saitoti had survived Poisoning before by Arap Moi Regime only to lose life by Sabotaging his Helicopter! before election .
CORD is being procedural by gatharing both documentary and other evidence available before filing their case at the SC. It is during this process that the IEBC has refused to cooperate. Therefore Hatari, how would you expect them to table this before the HC? They are there because the supporting evidence is not being availed by IEBC. Kweli even when RAO does things Constitutionally, there are those hellbent to oppose him. Damned if right; Damned if wrong.
Hi ,
At times l wish we could read.Yes the day is still hours away from being sunset .It is notable that Kenyans have chosen to be easy ,while fraudulent YK 92 goons and a “scion ” of a landgrabbbing meter reader,who himself is an ICC indictee,marching to the drumbeat of an ICC inductee who weeps crocodile tears in church.
The truth will be there soon to establish right from wrong.It will be either RAO or Uhuru.
The Hatari’s ,please chill and wait for the legal process to play out.
I will be always Wuod Luo who believes in fairness and honourable dealing.
Please read –
Abraham Lincoln-God ,Truth ,Crisis
“Am a firm believer in the people.If given the truth,they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.The great point is to bring them the real facts”.
“Nearly all men can stand adversity,but if you want to test a mans character,give him POWER”.
Power,Men and Character.
Later for more dialogue
KSB: Sawa Tonny. We are expecting you back.
I am neither for CORD nor Jubilee, they did not get my vote as they both represent the same exhausted played-out political formula with nothing to offer Kenya except empty rhetoric. Opinions are there to be stated and it is not a requirement to agree with them all. In my opinion CORD should apply the same transparency they demand for from the IEBC. Moreover if I do not agree with their modus operandi in contesting the election results should not translate or be construed as opposition to their constitutional rights being respected. My contention is how CORD can allege election rigging when they are in possession of data accumulated solely by their agents. Perhaps a juxtaposition where Jubilee would seek to declare themselves winners of the election using data accumulated solely by their agents may help to illustrate my point. I am not against the legal process running its course but discrepancies in vote tallying do not necessary mean rigging was intended and to assert so, as CORD have done,means that indisputable evidence of rigging exists and is beyond reproach. Tabling evidence already in hand that conclusively implies rigging should be presented and as a result IEBC/Safaricom records made available as the next logical step in exposing the purported election fraud. Curiously CORD begins bottom-up with demanding IEBC/Safaricom records despite their claims to indisputable data from their agents. This gives the impression that the demands for access to IEBC/Safaricom records has become necessary so as to bolster their rigging claims that in all likelihood were done in the height of intense emotions at being faced with losing the election when a majority win seemed to be an obvious conclusion. CORD deserves it day in court, but they should bear in mind the old adage; When in dispute with a chimpanzee it is futile to seek justice in a court presided over by a orangutan.
KSB: Hatari, you still do not get it but I will make it short. The source of data Cord has is the same source of data IEBC should have because it should be the same data that was agreed upon at the polling station. The problem is that Cords data has a huge margin of difference which gives Jubilee the lead. That is why Cord is seeking the data IEBC used to tally the result. The data being held by IEBC should be public. This is not asking for too much, given the consequences of a rigged election. Relax and let it be sorted out in court as Kenyans await. We all want peace but there will be no peace without justice.
Dear KSB, just because I do not see the issue your way does not mean I “do not get it”.
I am arguing my thoughts on case as I see the facts and patronizing statements like “Relax and let it be sorted out in court as Kenyans await” is a display of intolerance for differences of opinion. Furthermore my opinion, and for that matter KSB’s, presents neither advantage nor threat to the acquiescence of CORD’s demands.
I am no stakeholder in the matter and my engaging in an open discussion is hardly the invitation to the arrogant innuendo in regard to my capacity to understand the issue because we differ in opinion.
KSB: Now that the court also agreed that Cord has a right to the documents, I rest my case. You can continue reading anything in my statements because that is your right.
KSB, your statement “We all want peace but there will be no peace without justice.” should be viewed with the seriousness of the implications it brings. A lack of peace means that people are at war, even with justice denied as legitimate reason. That in essence is the message you have put up here. Perhaps those thinking along these lines should consider that war is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. People who are quick to say “there will be no peace” are ignorant of the horrors war brings. That path leads only to anguish and devastation that will reverberate for generations to come. Be careful what you wish for.
KSB: You have given my statement an interpretation and you have a right to what you say. Be careful about the interpretation you give to other people’s statements.
bNeoconservatism
John Ehrman – 11/21/11
123Next »
Neoconservatism is a right-wing branch of American liberalism that emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely as a reaction to liberal utopianism and the irrationality of the new Left. Most neoconservative writing has been concerned with social issues, such as the inefficiencies and unintended consequences of the welfare state, the problem of equal opportunity, and the amelioration of racial tensions. In foreign affairs, neoconser-vatives have consistently advocated strongly internationalist policies to contain communism and promote democracy abroad. Neoconservatives allied themselves with the traditional Right in the early 1980s, thereby increasing their own influence within the Reagan administration but also causing some resentment among those who saw them as latecomers to the conservative movement.
Neoconservatism is rooted in post–World War II liberalism. After the death of Franklin Roosevelt, liberals split over the question of how best to preserve and extend the reforms of the New Deal. Some liberals, disturbed by the rise of Cold War tensions with the USSR and fearing a takeover by the Right at home, were willing to form a coalition with communists to work for more domestic reforms and an accommodation with Moscow. Led by former vice president Henry A. Wallace and organized as the Progressive Party, they were opposed by liberals who saw communism as the true danger to liberalism. The latter group remained loyal Democrats and supported President Truman’s policies. Truman’s victory in the 1948 presidential election established their dominance among liberals and the leading role of their organization, the Americans for Democratic Action. Many of the individuals in this group who later became prominent neocon-servatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Daniel Bell, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were professors or New York intellectuals active in literary, artistic, and cultural criticism. Several, including Bell and Irving Kristol, had been Marxists when they were students in the 1930s, but had since broken with the radical Left.
The postwar generation of liberal intellectuals tended to be reformist and mildly socialist. Their writings portrayed American society as complex and its problems—mainly relating to political, economic, and racial inequality—as complicated as well. Consequently, they rejected what they viewed as the simplistic or utopian approaches to social problems advocated by the Left and Right, dismissing them as based on ideology rather than realistic analysis. This view received its fullest expression in Bell’s book, The End of Ideology (1960). Moreover, unlike traditional conservatives, these liberals were more concerned with shaping the future than with preserving traditional institutions. Instead, they emphasized a social-engineering approach to issues, using social science methods to identify problems and to develop government programs to solve them. In the 1960s, for example, they supported Kennedy and Johnson administration proposals to extend social welfare programs and to establish antipoverty and urban programs. Not surprisingly, many of the leading liberal intellectuals of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Daniel Bell and Nathan Glazer, were sociologists.
Neoconservatism began to emerge in the later 1960s when some liberal intellectuals began to consider the lessons of the decade’s failed reforms. Continued urban deterioration, increasing welfare enrollments and costs, and the rise of black militancy made it clear that many of the reforms had not met their goals. In addition, the social disorder and urban riots of the mid- and late-1960s led some liberals, particularly Moynihan and Kristol, to a new appreciation of the role of institutions and traditional authority in society. In seeking to explain reform’s failure, these liberals raised questions about the theories behind the programs and the federal government’s ability to administer programs effectively. Moynihan, for example, believed that the failure of urban anti-poverty programs had been caused by the government’s reliance on unproven theories that, in practice, turned out to be wrong. Glazer saw that some policies actually worsened problems, as when affirmative action programs failed to help the most disadvantaged while increasing racial and ethnic tensions. In sum, these liberals became much more skeptical about the ability of social scientists and the government to shape society. This skepticism became especially identified with the Public Interest, a magazine founded by Bell and Kristol in 1965 to examine social issues.
Many liberals were further disturbed in the late 1960s by the rising influence of the new Left. Postwar liberals had frequently seen themselves as radicals, but the new Left seized that label for itself while embracing a utopian ideology and attacking the concepts of liberal democracy. To some liberals, this was similar to the threat posed to reformist liberalism by communists twenty years earlier. For some the threat was also personal. Professors such as Glazer witnessed the student rebellions first hand and saw in them a threat to their academic freedom and their integrity as researchers and teachers. Some Jewish intellectuals saw the New Left’s attacks on Israel as thinly veiled anti-Semitism. This was particularly true for Norman Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary. In June 1970, Podhoretz began using Commentary as a platform for a broad counterattack against the new Left. By late 1970, he and other defenders of New Deal– and late-1940s-style liberalism were being called “new conservatives,” a label which evolved into “neoconservative” by the middle of the decade.