SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sylvester80 who wrote (39054)3/8/2004 10:13:33 PM
From: lurqer  Respond to of 89467
 
Always interesting how we're seen elsewhere.

Aristide's Final Hours

As Aristide left, the US marines moved in … and
revealed the true power behind the Haitian ‘revolt’


David Pratt

It was a strangely unimpressive victory procession into the capital. In all, there were perhaps only half a dozen vehicles, and most of those belonged to TV networks and their cameramen.
Flanked by two pick-up trucks carrying a handful of his soldiers armed with ageing weapons, the hero of the hour, Haitian rebel leader Guy Philippe, dressed in green combat fatigues, waved from the sunroof of his Jeep to the crowds of supporters who had gathered around the National Palace.

This was no Castro entering Havana after the overthrow of the Batista regime . This was a revolution that never was. A stage-managed coup d’état, whose real instigators – the US military – had only to stand on the steps of the same National Palace where just a few days earlier President Jean-Bertrand Aristide had held his last press conference, and watch as ‘regime change’ was implemented in Haiti yet again.

What really happened during the final hours of Aristide’s rule has become almost as controversial as what he did during his decade or so as leader. Did the so-called ‘saviour’ of Haitian democracy really jump from power to avoid a bloodbath, or was he pushed, having outlived his usefulness and political malleability? And just what was the extent of the US role in his demise?

Let’s be clear about this, what happened in Haiti was a coup d’état, and coups in a country like this don’t just happen, especially when the army has been disbanded for nearly a decade. The emergence of Philippe’s rebel army and his triumphant entry into Port-au-Prince had to be organised, his men retrained, resupplied and supported. Someone has to organise a coup.

It is not only by bombing and invasion that the neoconservative side of the Bush administration is able to get rid of governments it doesn’t like. Economic sanctions, political coercion and outright subversion can also be the order of the day.

“At least twice I was present when the president [Aristide] hung up the phone on some US official, making demands during these last days,” said one of Aristide’s personal Haitian security guards, who asked to remain anonymous .

As Aristide himself stepped from his plane into exile in Bangui, capital of the Central African Republic, he made a remark that cannot fail to have resonance with many ordinary Haitians.

“In overthrowing me, they cut down the tree of peace, but it will grow again, because its roots are well planted,” he said, alluding to a famous statement by the fabled leader of Haiti’s revolution, former slave and stable boy Toussaint L’Ouverture, who was entrapped by the French, bound, and hustled away from Haiti on a ship never to see his country again.

“They have felled only the trunk of the tree. Branches will sprout again, for its roots are numerous and deep,” Toussaint had similarly once said.

But the fact is that the roots of peace have been well and truly ripped up in the latest crisis in Haiti. In comparing himself with Toussaint, Aristide was making a connection between the French betrayal of the great revolutionary and the Americans’ betrayal of his own presidency.

The US, after all, has form in the Caribbean and Latin America, and just as the neocons around President Bush have long viewed Aristide as another potential Castro they were probably equally adamant in their appreciation of rebel leader Philippe, who lists as his heroes the former Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet and ex-US president Ronald Reagan. But for many ordinary Haitians, Philippe’s arrival is perceived as little more than the return of military rule.

“When Philippe was police chief, he bumped off loads of gang members. Who do you think is responsible for many of the fresh bodies lying on our streets since he came to Port-au-Prince?” said one former policeman, who like many Haitians prefers anonymity when expressing such views.

“I used to play ping pong with Philippe. Did you know he was a champion? He was as ruthless in that game as he is in dealing with his political enemies.”

Certainly, as paramilitary leaders go, Philippe has all the formal credentials. Having been trained by US Special Forces in Ecuador in the early 1990s, Philippe would no doubt have sanctioned and understood the role of the mysterious non-Haitians bristling with state-of-the-art weaponry who mingled with his ramshackle rebel group. Mercenaries? US Special Forces? Or that strange hybrid of both, that enables official US government spokesmen to deny the existence of such operatives should they ever overstep the mark?

The Bush administration, of course, has gone to great lengths to avoid direct complicity in a coup, with defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of state Colin Powell and White House press secretary Scott McClellan all calling that claim “absurd” and “nonsense”.

Most coups – as the French word suggests - means a sudden cut or blow. The coup against Aristide, and by extension against the Haitian people, was by contrast prolonged and cynically finessed. However, for Aristide to say he was abducted as he alleged is probably disingenuous.

One man who knows what happened is Jim Refinger. A former Jacksonville police sniper and retired marine, Refinger was part of the San Francisco-based private security team, the Steele Foundation, hired to protect Aristide.

“Everything was done with the full knowledge and co-operation of the president. There was no forcing the president to go anywhere. We protected our principal without a shot fired and he is safe.”

Perhaps not, but the story of US diplomat Luis Moreno tapping on Aristide’s car window as he waited on the tarmac of Port-au-Prince Airport early last Sunday morning also comes from the horse’s mouth.

“Mr President, with all due respect, the plane is 20 minutes away, I really need the letter,” Moreno had said, meaning Aristide’s letter of resignation. The president then pulled a letter from his wife Mildred’s handbag, as she sat by his side. Once its contents were confirmed, Moreno apologised to Aristide and his wife. “I said I was very sorry to see things end this way,” he said.

To which Aristide had replied in English: “Well, that’s life.”

Aristide was then told he would be flown to a place of his choice, but which turned out to be the Central African Republic (CAR), the former homeland of fabled killer and diamond collector Jean-Bédel Bokassa, a country where, according to the CIA country report on the internet, the elected civilian government of 10 years was recently replaced in a military coup . But unlike this quick coup, the one against Aristide was more like a slow death by strangulation.

Perhaps the most important question remaining over the US’s involvement in Aristide’s removal, however, is not so much the mechanics of it but what Washington has to gain by it.

In a country of almost unbelievable poverty, where 85% of the people live on $1 a day, nearly all the raw materials are controlled by US corporations, and companies such as Disney which use it as a source of cheap manufacturing.

A one-time preacher of liberation theology, Aristide had said his main goal was the alleviation of poverty. To this end he did have some success, doubling the minimum wage and claiming to have “built more schools in six years than had been built in the previous 190”.

Hardly surprising then, that certain US commercial interests would view Aristide and his motives with some disdain. Likewise the so-called Haitian elite have similar vested interests. There is “a growing enthusiasm among businessmen to use the rebels as a security force” said a report from the Los Angeles Times after the remnants of the Haitian army that helped engineer the coup descended on the capital.

Combine this with the crippling suspension of aid from the IMF and World Bank following alleged irregularities in legislature elections in 2000, and Aristide’s government was arguably already on life-support.

All of which is not to say that Jean-Bertrand Aristide is an angel. Far from it. Only last week I saw what remained of victims of “necklacing.” In Port-au-Prince’s general hospital morgue lay the charred bodies of two anti- Aristide activists, their hands frozen in a last horrific moment of pain after being necklaced with a car tyre doused in petrol and set alight. It was a style of punishment Aristide is said to have approved of.

Many people have died under Aristide’s government who shouldn’t have. Very few who perpetrated such crimes have been brought to justice under his rule. But it is probably fair to say he didn’t start out to be a brutal dictator , but history, events, the international community and his own flawed character conspired against him.

Aristide might not have delivered the democracy he promised, but the former death squad leaders and army thugs whose undisciplined forces seized power in a succession of cities before marching into Port-au-Prince are men who have never accepted democracy and now menace Haiti’s democratic future.

In the coming weeks the US government might well find itself in another military mire. With US interventions in Haiti in 1916, 1994 and now in 2004, it is becoming a tragic routine.

When Marine Sergeant Christopher Smith easily ran off some poorly armed Haitian rebels last week he saw one side of the peacekeepers' task here: the ridiculous.

When marines guarding Haiti’s National Palace were harangued by protesters on Friday, they saw another: the resentment.

When the peacekeepers try to stand this country on its feet for the third time in a century they will probably see another enemy: the rot, born of poverty and lawlessness.

And when the international peacekeeping force enters the seaside slums of Cité Soleil or Saint Martin – which they have yet to do in force – they will likely see another side: the resistance.

In the next few weeks the Haitian people, who have featured so prominently in media reports – those running the gauntlet of demonstrations, the looters, those cowering as shots rang out or lying sprawled on a pavement as blood ran from their wounds – will fade from the scene.

In this, the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and less than two hours’ flying time from the bright lights of Miami, few will remember how they were used by the masters of Haiti’s coup.

sundayherald.com

lurqer



To: sylvester80 who wrote (39054)3/8/2004 10:25:12 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Envoy had been a target

Before his CIA wife’s cover was blown, White House directed efforts to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV


BY TOM BRUNE

WASHINGTON - A transcript subpoenaed in the CIA leak probe reveals the White House press operation began efforts to personally discredit former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV days before a columnist blew the cover of his CIA-officer wife.

As Newsday reported Friday, a federal grand jury served three subpoenas on the White House in January for Air Force One telephone records and a transcript of a press briefing during the presidential trip to Africa the week before Robert Novak's July 14 column identifying CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The grand jury also subpoenaed White House records of staff contacts with an expanded list of more than two dozen reporters who wrote or broadcast about administration concerns over Plame, Wilson and his CIA report that rejected rumors Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger.

The White House Friday confirmed it had received subpoenas. "We're still in the process of complying fully," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

The efforts to discredit Wilson came after he went public July 6 with criticism of President George W. Bush for mentioning the uranium rumor in January 2003 in his State of the Union address which helped make a case for the Iraq war.

In the subpoenaed July 12 transcript of a briefing in Nigeria, then-press secretary Ari Fleischer called Wilson a "lower-level official" and said Wilson had made flawed and incomplete statements. Fleischer did not return calls Friday.

Meanwhile, many of the journalists on the subpoena's list have reported various attempts by the Bush administration last year to discredit Wilson by suggesting his wife arranged for the CIA to send him to Niger.

For example, Time Magazine reported three days after Novak's column that unnamed administration officials had described Plame's relationship to Wilson and suggested she had gotten him the mission.

One journalist, NBC reporter and "Meet the Press" host Andrea Mitchell, appears to have several connections of interest.

On July 6, she interviewed Wilson about his trip to Niger, and two days later she reported officials tried to cast Wilson as a Democratic "partisan."

And on July 16, her husband, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, was honored at a White House reception held to celebrate former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday. The grand jury subpoenaed the guest list, which has not been released.

"I shouldn't talk about it," Mitchell said Friday, declining to say if she attended the reception. Asked why the grand jury might be interested in it, she said, "I can't even imagine."

Probe's scope includes media figures

Subpoena list

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July. They include:

Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times

Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday

Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post

Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine

Evan Thomas, Newsweek

Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC

Chris Matthews, "Hardball,"

MSNBC

Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC

Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times

Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal

John Solomon, The Associated Press

Jeff Gannon, Talon News

newsday.com

lurqer



To: sylvester80 who wrote (39054)3/9/2004 1:19:18 AM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Political Mugging In America
Anatomy of an "Independent" Smear Campaign


by Charles Lewis

As Mark Twain once put it, "A truth is not hard to kill and a lie told well is immortal."

In the 21st century in the United States of America, it is still astonishingly easy to assassinate a political opponent's character, with little or no accountability or basis in fact. It is hardly new to politics anywhere that money and the messages it buys often create devastating perceptions. But such smear tactics are more serious and offensive when they benefit major "mainstream" candidates seeking the Presidency, are utilized anonymously by mysterious, outside organizations and they occur in the wake of recent, historic, campaign finance reform and new political disclosure requirements.

On November 7, 2003, a strange new group no one had ever heard of called "Americans for Jobs & Healthcare" was quietly formed and soon thereafter began running a million dollar operation including political ads against then-frontrunner Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The commercials ripped Dean over his positions or past record on gun rights, trade and Medicare growth. But the most inflammatory ad used the visual image of Osama bin Laden as a way to raise questions about Dean's foreign policy credibility. While the spots ran, Americans for Jobs—through its then-spokesman, Robert Gibbs, a former Kerry campaign employee—refused to disclose its donors.

The Dean campaign cried foul, but no one, including the news media, could figure out exactly who was behind "Americans for Jobs." The disturbing mystery was partly solved by Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post on February 11, after reviewing public Internal Revenue Service records filed under Section 527 of federal tax law. Unfortunately for voters and the general public, that legal disclosure information was filed January 30, 2004, nine days after the Iowa caucuses in which Massachusetts Senator John Kerry upset former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Those contribution records were updated again with another $337,000 in donations on March 4, 2004, for a total of exactly $1 million that the group raised.

The most stunning single fact to emerge—which should have been covered more heavily nationwide and was first broken by the Web site PoliticsNJ.com—was that disgraced former Senator Robert Torricelli, severely admonished for his unsavory campaign finance practices and forced to leave the Senate, had quietly donated $50,000 from his old Senate campaign account to Americans for Jobs. Torricelli reportedly also is a fundraiser for Senator Kerry's presidential campaign.

Why is one of the sleaziest former public officials helping Senator Kerry collect campaign cash? And now that Torricelli and other Kerry campaign donors have been "outed" for supporting the controversial group, why hasn't Kerry been directly asked about the entire controversy? Indeed, why hasn't the avowed campaign finance reformer publicly criticized either the caper or Torricelli? Kerry and his campaign staff declined to answer these and other related, on-the-record questions from the Center for Public Integrity. A Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that "I am told no one knew anything about it."

Americans for Jobs was a street rumble after dark, in which donors or fundraisers for the major Democratic presidential candidates then overshadowed by Dean—Kerry, Rep. Richard Gephardt, and retired General Wesley Clark—all piled on. Labor unions that had publicly endorsed Gephardt accounted for a fifth of the money—the International Longshoremen's Association ($50,000), the Laborers' International Union of North America ($50,000), the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ($100,000), the International Association of Ironworkers ($25,000) and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers ($5,000). A former Dean donor, former Slim-Fast Foods businessman S. Daniel Abraham, gave $200,000. Past Kerry donor Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space and Communications—the tenth leading donor to the Democratic Party, giving $5.3 million over the years—chipped in $15,000. A top money chaser for Wesley Clark, Alan Patricof, also donated to this shadowy group.

Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity study of the 28 contributors to Americans for Jobs found that they have given more than $8.7 million to the Democratic Party in recent years and another $550,000 to the committees of those running for president.

Among the greatest beneficiaries of these donations was Gephardt, who received more than $417,000. In fact, at least 23 of the 28 people contributing to Americans for Jobs had donated to Gephardt in the past. Some of the donors are also aligned with Kerry and gave almost $60,000 to his campaigns over the years.

Four of these 28 individual contributors had also given $7,200 to Dean between March and July of 2003. One of the donors told the Center that he had no idea the money would be used on attack ads. Rick Sloan, the communications director for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, told the LA Times: "I tell you, these ads are despicable. If I have my way, we'll ask for a refund." But following his remarks published on December 17, 2003, his labor union is reported to have made another donation to Americans for Jobs for $50,000 on January 9, 2004.

Who exactly forms a stealth, hit-and-run operation in presidential politics today, up and down in six weeks, doing $1 million worth of damage in advertising and other spending before the new federal, 30-day broadcast limit on political issue ads by outside groups kicked in December 21?

Americans for Jobs' address was 2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 800, in Washington, D.C., the same location for DWJ Consulting, its "custodian of records" one David W. Jones, apparently the group's executive director and a political adviser for years to Gephardt. Jones told the Washington Post, "Our goal was to point out where Howard Dean stood on the issues and point out that he had no foreign policy experience. Clearly those goals were accomplished." He denied that there was any coordination with the various presidential candidates.

The registered e-mail address of Americans for Jobs belonged to Mark W. Ward, a client specialist in the Washington, D.C., office of the billion dollar law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, one of the largest law firms in the world, which also has a large lobbying network representing companies like Verizon, Entergy-Koch LP, and Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America. Ward wrote the IRS a letter on Skadden Arps letterhead on Jan. 30, 2004 accompanying Americans for Jobs' first and so far only financial filing.

"Mark does our FEC filings and IRS filings," said Melissa Miles, an attorney with Skadden, Arps. The firm is listed as the recipient of $36,000 in itemized expenditures from Americans for Jobs. Skadden Arps is also the fifth most generous career patron to Senator Kerry, its employees directly donating $125,550 to his campaigns, its clients lavishing many times more than that over the years. In fact, the law firm and its employees are the largest donors to Kerry for the current election cycle. But Miles said Kerry "had nothing to do with [the 527] to our knowledge."

Hit-and-run political organizations are the bane of any open democracy. Who can forget the infamous Willie Horton commercial in the 1988 presidential campaign or the dozen groups all coincidentally friendly to George W. Bush that suddenly materialized in the 2000 GOP primary in South Carolina, spending millions of dollars and spreading the worst kind of vituperative bile to defame Senator John McCain and his wife? Who can forget the below-board tactics used to bring down incumbent Democratic Georgia Senator Max Cleland two years later, in which his opponent paid for TV commercials questioning the patriotism of Vietnam War hero Cleland. In an interview for The Buying of the President 2004 (HarperCollins), McCain told me that the same people who quietly assisted Bush in South Carolina in his 2000 primary showdown there also were involved in Georgia. The slander was "run by the same people, [former Christian Coalition executive director and Bush "Pioneer"] Ralph Reed . . . The same outfit, the same organizations, and I will never, ever get over them running a picture of Max Cleland, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, [this about] a man who left three limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam. That's just something I will never get over."

All of this underscores the profoundly disturbing state of our politics today. Storefront political hit squads can be created overnight, as easily as Internet investment scams, with candidates and the public victimized with nowhere to turn. Political operatives continue to form substantially unaccountable "cutout" organizations to quickly, effectively and virtually anonymously influence electoral outcomes. In fact, since 2000 there have been 42 groups who have filed only one disclosure report with the IRS. Collectively, these organizations still raised $32 million in contributions, an average of about $781,000 each, according to data compiled by the Center for Public Integrity.

The strutting and braggadocio of ostensibly independent organizations with impeccably and indubitably dependent pedigrees give the impression of a wild, wild west town with no sheriff and no jail. For example, according to National Journal, we have the Republican 501(c)(4) organization, Progress for America, which expects to raise $40 million to $60 million for television ads, direct mail and other "outreach" and "issue truth squads" on behalf of President Bush during 2004. Unlike 527s, this group is not required by law to publicly disclose its donors. The counsel for the group is Ben Ginsberg, also the chief outside counsel to the Bush campaign. Ken Mehlman, manager of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, and Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, were among 150 party poobahs at a Willard Hotel bash for the organization last October.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have been aggressively raising money for several 527 surrogate party organizations, including the Media Fund, begun by Harold Ickes, the former Clinton White House deputy chief of staff who also serves on the executive committee of the Democratic National Committee. Former President Clinton wholeheartedly supports and will help this effort designed to raise $95 million for issue ads against Bush this year. Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros has announced that he will contribute $10 million to another 527 group, America Coming Together, a huge voter mobilization effort.*

Despite the valiant, well-intentioned efforts of the campaign finance reformers there is an unavoidable sense of chaos and opportunity for mischief. The Federal Election Commission, which unabashedly attempted to diminish the McCain-Feingold law with a 300-page "devil-in-the-details" rulemaking document, has an abysmal record of regulation and enforcement. In the nearly three decade history of the FEC, there has been only one successful case brought against a campaign for coordinating "independent" expenditures." With few if any records available on a timely basis, journalists find themselves in the dark, desperately seeking the dirty tricksters of 21st century America.

In the recent Iowa caucuses, we saw our first political mugging of the 2004 presidential campaign, Democrats sneakily slurring Democrats. It absolutely will not be the last, considering the remarkable cash advantage and sordid reputation of White House political director Karl Rove, who years ago taught negative campaigning techniques at the University of Texas. The bubble and unexpected implosion of frontrunner Dean's $47 million candidacy will be studied for years to come, and no one can or should plausibly suggest that his political demise was substantially attributable to the attacks from Americans for Jobs or any other para-mudslinging subterfuge efforts we don't know about.

But shouldn't the American people, including the national news media, insist on knowing who is mucking around their democracy in the midst of a presidential election?

commondreams.org

lurqer



To: sylvester80 who wrote (39054)3/9/2004 7:36:57 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
Blix: Bush, Blair Knew They Were Hyping Case for War

story.news.yahoo.com