March Iraq death count

At least 50 American troops and two civilian Defense Department employees
died in Iraq in March, making it the second most successful month for Iraqi freedom fighters struggling to liberate their land from oppression and evil. Of course, these are the official Pentagon numbers, and the real number of deaths is no doubt higher (and it doesn't include the mutilated 'civilian contractors'). I thought I had been reading how the resistance was decreasing, and the Iraqis now love their American 'liberators'.

9-11 defenses deliberately removed

From "The Bush administration and September 11: the implications of Richard Clarke's revelations" by Patrick Martin:

"Clarke's testimony confirms that the Al Qaeda attacks were made possible by a virtual stand-down of the counter-terrorist preparations that had been in effect in the last years of the Clinton administration - certainly from the time of the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998.

What neither Clarke, nor his interrogators, nor the media have addressed is whether this stand-down was deliberate: i.e., that at some level of the US government, a decision was made to permit a terrorist attack to go forward in order to provide the necessary pretext for US military action in the Middle East and Central Asia, a step which up until then was politically impossible."

and (my emphasis):

"Another significant detail is Clarke’s report that after his office had triggered a nationwide counter-terrorist alert during the summer of 2001, based on intelligence intercepts, it encountered pressure from the Pentagon, which said that military units on alert status were beginning to suffer from fatigue. The alert, which had included the Federal Aviation Agency, was eased by the end of August, two weeks before the 19 suicide hijackers boarded their flights. The timing suggests that those who dispatched the hijackers knew when security was being relaxed. What was their source of information?"

Perhaps the greatest unsolved mystery of 9-11 is how the normal defenses of the American government were relaxed in the weeks just prior to the attack. This is particularly troubling considering the fact that as recently as June 2001 George Tenet was nearly 'frantic' with worry about CIA intelligence intercepts which indicated an imminent terrorist attack. On June 22, the Pentagon's Central and European Commands imposed 'Force Protection Condition Delta,' the highest anti-terrorist alert, and actually ordered some ships in the Middle East out to sea to protect them from attack (and note NORAD's very interesting Amalgam Virgo exercises held in early June at Tyndall Air Force Base - where hijacker Saeed Alghamdi may have worked - with guess-who on the cover of the brochure, regarding defense against a cruise missile attack on American soil, even more interesting if the attack on September 11 on the Pentagon was actually by a cruise missile). On June 23, the State Department issued a worldwide warning on terrorist attacks. On June 28, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice received an intelligence summary warning that a significant al Qaeda attack in the near future was "highly likely." On July 3, Tenet made an urgent special request to 20 friendly intelligence services, asking for the arrest of a list of known al Qaeda operatives. A meeting of commanders of all federal counter-terrorism agencies was held in the White House Situation Room on July 5. At that meeting Richard Clarke said:

"Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."

He directed every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer non-vital travel, put off scheduled exercises and place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert (would NORAD have been so lackadaisical if the alert was still in place on September 11?). During this time FBI field agents were issuing warnings about suspicious aviation training that fell into the black hole of the FBI's head office, never to be seen by anyone who could have used the information. On July 31, the FAA warned airlines that terrorists were planning and training for hijackings and urged them to maintain a "high degree of alertness." Tenet delivered his report to Bush in Crawford on August 6. Is it a coincidence that shortly thereafter the high terrorism alert was cancelled? Tenet's report could not have been comforting, as Tenet was still making dire warnings in late summer, and was reported to have "repeated this so often that people got tired of hearing it." The Bush Administration's attempts to blame their complete failure to prevent 9-11 on Clinton or on unfortunate negligence won't wash. There was active malfeasance, in the Pentagon and probably the FBI and possibly the Bush White House, to relax the usual defenses to allow the terrorist attacks to succeed.

Kerry on Venezuela

On March 19 John Kerry excreted a bizarre, one-sided and factually wrong statement on the current situation in Venezuela. His statement might as well have been written by those who plotted the unsuccessful coup against Hugo Chavez. I don't believe Americans were sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for Kerry to pronounce on the issue of Venezuela, so what was his motive for releasing such utter nonsense? One of the main Venezuelan coup plotters, Gustavo Cisneros, is an extremely rich man who controls Univision, the largest Spanish-language media company in the United States. It does not take a conspiracy theorist to make the connection to Kerry's statement. It appears that Kerry will dance to whatever tune he thinks will get him into the White House. While he may be an improvement over Bush (hell, Pol Pot would be an improvement over Bush), he is not going to be much of an improvement.

Psychics against terrorism

American Airlines Flight 1304 at Southwest Florida International Airport was canceled on Friday because some crew members had exceeded their work hours by the time a search of the plane was finished. The plane was being searched because of a psychic's tip that a terrorist bomb might be on board. Doug Perkins, local administrator for the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) director, said:

"We were notified early today of a call that was made by a supposed psychic that said there may be a bomb on board an aircraft. It’s unusual, but in these times, we can’t ignore anything. We want to take the appropriate measures."

It's good to know that the TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, has a direct connection to the Psychic Friends Hotline. Is it April Fool's Day already? Just think what might have happened, or not happened, if psychics had been on duty on September 10, 2001.

Condi's contradictions

In the course of about a week, Condoleezza Rice has gone from looking like the next running mate of George Bush to looking like the next cell mate of Martha Stewart. It makes perfect sense for her not to want to testify under oath, as she will have to lie to protect herself and her President, and she knows from the history of Watergate and Iran-Contra that lying in a cover-up is much more dangerous than the original crimes. The problem is that you can't simultaneously resist testifying under oath and be the ubiquitous hard-line spokesmodel for the Bush Administration position to any friendly 'journalist' who will help you spread the manure. You quickly start to look like a fool and a liar. Her situation has become so untenable that you have to wonder whether the Machiavellian hand of Dick Cheney is advising her on what to do, thus eliminating his rival for the job he wants to keep.

Israel's crimes in the Gaza Strip

Hidden behind the Israeli murder of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Israeli propaganda about supposed child suicide bombers is the fact that Israel continues its campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, and in fact appears to be accelerating it. The human rights violations are particularly fierce in the Gaza Strip, which makes one wonder about Sharon's stated plans to withdraw the settlers. For anyone who thinks you can make a 'case' for Israel, just read this article by Jennifer Loewenstein on the Israeli actions against those living in the Gaza Strip (see also here and here and, on the starvation plan, here and here). Many comparisons are made between the current Israeli government and Nazi Germany. One similarity which strikes me is that in both cases the perpetrators get away with wholesale acts of cruelty because people are not capable of believing that a 'civilized' people could commit such crimes. If you look at what Israel is doing in the Gaza Strip, it is clear that Israel is protected by the fact that the enormity of its crimes makes them unbelievable. The nature of the horrors also makes it easy for those living in the country or its outside apologists to fool themselves into thinking that they are not happening, and that the reporting of them is merely anti-Jewish hatred. The bad-faith apologists for Israel like to claim that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for what it does if there is any act of inhumanity in the world which is worse which does not receive equal criticism. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing being done anywhere in the world today which is more evil than what the Israelis are doing in the Gaza Strip (and let's not forget the West Bank: read the end of this article for some of the antics of those fun-lovin' Israeli settlers). If there was any mainstream honest reporting being done - and Israel's restrictions on press freedom in the Gaza Strip are intended to ensure that no reporting can take place - an international boycott against Israel and its corporate supporters would be inevitable.

Bush in Genoa and airplane threats

The single best refutation of Bush Administration assertions that no one could have known about an al-Qaeda attack by crashed airplane is Bush's attendance at the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, where the Italian government installed surface-to-air missiles at strategic locations around the city to protect Bush and the other leaders from just such an al Qaeda attack. This caution was based on information received by American and other intelligence agencies. Weeks later, in early August in Crawford, Bush received a report from George Tenet on the al Qaeda threat. I wonder what it said.

Sibel Edmonds and John Ashcroft

If this story about Sibel Edmonds reported by Tom Flocco is true, it is the 'Watergate' of 9-11, the occasion when a high Bush Administration official, in this case John Ashcroft, covered up what Edmonds' translations reveal about foreknowledge by the Bush Administration of the 9-11 attacks. Edmonds only started working in December 2001, but was translating material that had already been handled by other translators who "had ongoing personal relationships with the subjects or targets of the FBI and DOJ pre 9-11 investigations linked to intercepts and other intelligence in June - July - August, just prior to the attacks." This would explain the mystery of why the FBI has seemed so unconcerned about earlier allegations by Edmonds of incompetence and worse amongst the FBI translators. The reason why the FBI did nothing about it may be that an investigation would have revealed inconvenient foreknowledge. The fact that Ashcroft himself was involved indicates that the cover-up goes right up to the top of the Bush Administration, and indicates that foreknowledge must have also gone up as high. Remember, it was Ashcroft who stopped taking commercial flights in July 2001 (you have to wonder if Ashcroft's recent medical problems were caused by stress due to the upcoming 9-11 hearings). It's always the cover-up that gets you in trouble.

The response to the murder of Sheik Ahmed Yassin

The murder of Sheik Ahmed Yassin has been greeted with all the predictable condemnations by all the leaders of the world (except of course for the Americans, who no doubt approved it, and may have even ordered it). I don't want to defend the guy, but compared to what's coming, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was a moderate, even a potential peace-maker, and Sharon had to know that his murder would lead to more violence against Israelis. Yassin's real threat may have been the possibility of peace and an end to terrorism, which would have ended the ability of the Israeli state to use retaliation and the 'war on terrorism' as an excuse to attack Palestinians as part of a program of ethnic cleansing, and thus end the Likudnik dream of establishing Greater Israel on land stolen from the Palestinians. What bothers me about the condemnations is that the world is acting as if this is some kind of surprise. It shouldn't be. Sharon has been trying to murder Yassin for some time now, and has managed to murder quite a few innocent Palestinian civilians in the process. Yassin was actually at one time held in an Israeli jail, and was released by none other than Benjamin Netanyahu. He could have been arrested and tried again if the Israelis were interested in justice. Instead, Sharon wanted to provoke a war, and has been allowed to get away with it. Civilians in other countries and in Israel are now going to face completely unnecessary deaths, all because Sharon is insane and no one does anything about it. The condemnations after the fact are worse than worthless. All they do is give Sharon more confidence to continue to ratchet up the violence. Each time he gets away with it, he is emboldened to do more. Talking is no good. The world, with the exception of the outlaw state, the U. S. A., has to immediately begin a complete boycott of Israel. The U. S. will veto or block any U. N. moves in that regard, so the boycott has to be an individual decision by each state against Israel (this will no doubt provoke some trade law litigation, but the delays in fighting it should be long enough to create the desired effect). The boycott would hurt Israel, but more importantly it should make it financially impossible for the Americans to continue to prop up the Israeli economy. The boycott would be a matter of social justice, a world-wide protest against the state violence against the Palestinians, the illegal settlements, the American-Israeli apartheid wall, the discrimination of Israel against many of its citizens, the targeted assassinations, and so many other crimes. Apart from that, it has become a matter of internal security for all countries in the world. The violence caused by Sharon is going to start to leak out. Politicians in countries who don't do something about Sharon are sentencing their own people to the inevitable violent response to the insane violence of the Israeli government.

Aznar's two sets of lies

It is becoming clear that the strategy of the Aznar government was to use the story that the ETA was behind the Madrid bombings to get through the few days before the election. Aznar knew that an al-Qaeda bombing would look bad on him, but thought he could count on the disgusting Spanish media to go along with the story for a few days. Once his party was reelected, they would abandon the ETA theory and use the al-Qaeda theory to assist in fighting Bush's bogus 'war on terrorism', reducing civil liberties in Spain, and scapegoating Muslim immigrants. Sweet. Two successive conspiracies were supposed to unfold just in time to meet the needs of Aznar's party. Unfortunately for Aznar and his fascist pals, the disgusting Spanish media isn't anywhere near as disgusting as the disgusting American media (who can always be counted on to hide the truths which the Powers That Be want hidden), and refused to play along with the program (although large portions of the media, particularly state-owned media, deeply shamed themselves in going along with the lies). Once the word started to get out, telephone messaging was used to rally the people, and the fascists were doomed (telephone messaging has become a major tool in the hands of the people in the Spanish election and in the overthrow of the coup attempt in Venezuela: how long before the authorities ban it?). Note the oddities:

1. Aznar announced that the ETA was responsible before he could possibly have had any evidence.


2. Spanish diplomats pushed a resolution blaming the ETA through the U.N. Security Council so quickly - the afternoon of the same day! - a suspicious person might believe they were ready in advance of the bombing. In any event, the resolution was passed at a time when there was no possible evidence of ETA involvement (to the shame of the Security Council, which owes the Basques an apology). In fact, by 11 a. m. Spanish police had discovered the abandoned van containing seven detonators and a cassette tape with verses of the Koran (another suspiciously quick discovery that appears to be part of the set up of 'al-Qaeda', but one which puts the lie to the Aznar government's protestations of innocence about the stories it told the Spanish people).


3. Immediately after the bombings, Aznar and other Popular Party officials telephoned journalists, stressing the responsibility of the ETA and dismissing speculation that Islamic terrorists might be involved. Outside of Madrid, radio stations discussed the Islamic possibility, but the radio stations in Madrid stuck to the official line that it was the ETA. El Pais received several calls personally from Aznar, as did El Periodico. Aznar's office also placed calls to at least 10 foreign correspondents during the day, all making the same, lying point (Steven Adolf, head of the Madrid-based Association of Foreign Correspondents, has accused Aznar's government of willfully misleading foreign journalists by making these calls at a time when they knew about evidence of Islamic terrorist involvement). Spanish television managed to show the protestors without showing their anti-war banners, thus giving the false impression that they were protesting against the ETA and not Spain's shameful involvement in the attack on Iraq (there are now calls for resignations of the directors of the state-owned media for caving in on the demands of the Spanish government to lie about the bombings and the protests). Spain's state-run news agency, EFE, also lied to the Spanish people. Spanish journalist Lucía Etxebarría was commissioned by the newspaper El Mundo to write a story on the bombings, but it refused to publish the story when she criticized the government's hypothesis that the ETA was responsible (moral: don't expect to read the truth in El Mundo).


4. The Spanish Foreign Ministry was sending instructions to its embassies, saying diplomats "should use any opportunity to confirm ETA's responsibility for these brutal attacks." Again, this was far too soon to be so certain of the facts, and far too soon not to have been the subject of planning prior to the bombings.


5. Jack Straw, another massive liar, was confirming ETA involvement within two hours of the bombings (proving that the Axis of Liars has to stick together).


6. Those police in charge of antiterrorism in Spain threatened to resign unless the government stopped spreading its lies, and this fact became known.


7. The Aznar government expressly lied (or here) about the nature of the explosives used to make it appear that it was the same type used by the ETA (see the lie repeated here and here).


8. Some commentators on the American right have suggested that Aznar did not deceive the Spanish people as he disclosed the Islamic involvement just before the elections. What they fail to point out is that Aznar only revealed the truth when he was forced to by Spanish journalists and police who were going to report what was really happening anyway. Aznar kept the lie going for more than 48 hours, but the truth finally caught up with him.

Much has been made of the fact that the results of the election were determined by the disgust of the Spanish people at being lied to by the Aznar government. It goes much deeper than that. It suddenly became clear that Aznar was much more interested in having his party reelected than he was in either telling the truth or actually protecting the Spanish people from the results of terrorism. The realization of this is the paradigm-shift (on which I will have more to say). The events of March 11 suddenly opened the eyes of the Spanish people to the fact that the 'war on terrorism' was not what it had seemed to be, and the only real war was by the American neocons against all the peoples of the world, including the Spanish people. Aznar's lies, and his obvious disinclination to do anything that would protect the average person from the effects of terrorism, made clear that the whole 'war on terrorism' was itself a massive lie.

Weeping and hollering terrorists

Lee Harvey Oswald said:

"I am just a patsy."

One of the co-accused in the Madrid bombing case, Mohamed Bekkali, on entering the courtroom shouted (or here):

"I am innocent! I am innocent!"

Real terrorists are proud to take credit for what they have done. Patsies yell out their innocence. The supposed ringleader, Jamal Zougam, wept. Isn't he supposed to be defiant to the court and proud of what he has done? These are some weird terrorists.

Easy fake terrorism

You can see how absurdly easy it is to create a fake 'al-Qaeda' terrorist attack. Take one petty criminal from Madrid of plausible ethnicity and pay him some money to hang out with some people who the authorities can associate with al-Qaeda. After the bomb attack, either plant a bag of unexploded bombs or find a real dud bag and, while it is in the police station, put a phone and a phone card from the shop of the petty criminal in the bag. The criminal is instantly turned into Lee Harvey Oswald, and the bombing attack is instantly turned into an act of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

'Jamal Zougam'

I'm still thinking about what to write about the paradigm shift in Spain, but in the meantime . . . :

1. The main suspect, Jamal Zougam appears to have been a petty scammer and fence who dealt in stolen telephones and credit cards brought to him by a ring of pickpockets in Madrid. One business associate who had visited him just before the attack said:

   "I know what he is accused of, but this is not the Jamal we know."

   Mahabur al-Farhon, who owns a boutique close to Zougam's shop, said:

   "When we had a beer together he never talked about religion. He was more interested in making money."

   
   Zougam is tied into the bombings by a phonecard said to have come from his shop which was found in the one bag of bombs which did not explode. The reason it did not explode is supposedly because the trigger for the explosion, a phone call to a disposable cell phone in the bag, was not made. The reason the call was not made? Because the terrorists forgot (or because they set the clock on one detonator for 19:40 rather than 7:40)! The famous bag itself was found in a police station, where it supposedly had been taken by the police along with other luggage found at the scene of the bombing. The Spanish authorities don't seem comfortable with witness statements that Zougam was on the train, so the fact one of his phones and phonecards were used really doesn't prove anything except that someone involved may have bought them from him.


2. A group of radical Muslims had moved into Zougam's neighborhood recently, but Zougam was never seen in their company. He liked to go to nightclubs, was interested in sporting the latest fashions, and had boasted about his many girlfriends. In other words, he was just like Mohamed Atta, another 'Islamic fundamentalist' with decidedly un-fundamentalist choices in lifestyle!


3. Moroccan authorities have identified the three arrested Moroccans as Jamal Zugam, 30, an office worker, Muhammad Bekkali, 31, a mechanic and Muhammad Chaui, 34, a factory worker. They are not known to be connected to terrorism (and the Moroccans appear to be on top of such things). This is eerily reminiscent of the stolen identities used in the 9-11 attack.


4. The Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade, which took credit for the bombings, may not actually exist.


5. Of the five arrested men, three are said to be Moroccans (with five other Moroccan suspects not yet apprehended), and two are supposed to be from India. Although it may be a translation problem, they were described as being of 'Hindu' origin, odd members for al-Qaeda! It is interesting that initially the men of 'Hindu' origin were simply being questioned and were not expected to be arrested.


6. There were no suicide bombers.

If 'Jamal Zougam' (if that is his real name) was involved, and that is certainly not proven, it seems likely he did it for money rather than for religious ideals. If so, anyone could have hired him. The complete absence of any timely claim to have done the act from any known terrorist group makes it highly unlikely that it was a terrorist act in the traditional sense (I don't see any of the late claims of responsibility as being credible). The weavers of stories have already started their work of tying 'Jamal Zougam' into the web of international Islamic terrorism. Don't believe the hype!

Haiti and Aristide

Haiti (more on the wonderful news from Spain later as I need some thinking time):

1. Aristide has given more details on the kidnapping (see also here and even here). He was tricked by the deputy chief of the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Luis Moreno, into going with an American escort to give a television address pre-arranged by U.S. Ambassador James Foley. The escort were supposed to supply security. Instead of going to meet with news media, the escort took him straight to the plane and flew him away. Witnesses, including an American security guard, confirm Aristide's version. The disgusting American media rather clumsily hid the truth.


2. The disgusting American media did its usual hack job on Aristide so well you'd think he was Papa Doc and his opposition were a combination of Mother Theresa and Abraham Lincoln. They did such a good job of character assassination that even leftists ended up apologizing for him. All of this was highly unfair. His government was plagued by corruption, but was taking all the steps to improve the lot of the poor it possibly could in the face of extreme economic pressures put on it by the United States and its controlled international organizations. If you thought you saw corruption under Aristide, just wait until the current opposition get their hands on things! A lot of these guys have gotten to their current position in life by their skills at murdering people with machetes.


3. France didn't like the bad example a socialist popular politician might have on its Caribbean assets, Martinique and Guadeloupe, and the Americans had similar fears about the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. You just don't want to give poor people any uppity ideas.


4. The acting Haitian Prime Minister, Gerard Latortue, has accused Aristide of attempting to destabilize the country with his visit to Jamaica. Besides being acting Prime Minister, it turns out he is also a comedian!

Attacks in Madrid

Everyone is guessing about Spain. It wasn't terrorism, as terrorism requires someone taking responsibility for the attacks in order to use the threat of violence against civilians to force politicians towards a political goal. The Abu Hafs Al-Masri Brigades, who initially took responsibility, are responsibility sluts, claiming involvement in everything (including last summer's blackout in the U. S. and Canada!), which removes the credibility from all their claims. Since no ETA group has claimed responsibility (and note that the Spanish government accused the ETA before Spanish officials could possibly have had any evidence, proving once again how the term 'terrorism' is used by those in power to vilify those who lack power), and the latest 'al Qaeda' claim is a day late and a Euro short, there is no legitimate claim of responsibility, and the attack cannot be traditional terrorism. The fact that the police have already rounded up the usual suspects means nothing. The attacks appear to be closer to a 'strategy of terror', where groups associated with those in power use terrorism threats against civilians to put political pressure on the politicians - in this case, welcome political pressure - to lead the politicians to enact right-wing legislation banning dissent and increasing the power of the police state, all justified by the necessity to fight the 'war on terrorism'. The discovery of the truck containing detonators and a tape in Arabic is a nice touch to create racial tension in Spain, although tricks like this have been used so often they are getting a little too obvious. The most likely candidates for the Madrid explosions are extreme right-wingers associated with both the Francoist edge of the governing conservative Popular Party - which is really more at the center than the edge as the party was founded by one of Franco's ministers who is still a major power in the party - and the Spanish military. I wouldn't call the Popular Party fascists, but some of their friends certainly are. It was not that long ago (1981) that these same people attempted a coup in Spain, and they are still a powerful force behind the scenes. We will probably never know the truth, as it cuts too close to very deep power structures in Spain.

Rumsfeld's trophy

Donald Rumsfeld has a piece of whatever hit the Pentagon on September 11 in his office. That means he has a piece of a cruise missile in his office, a sort of trophy, appropriate for the Secretary of Defense, of an extremely successful Defense Department operation.

Last minute to-do list of the Bush Administration

Do you get the feeling that the Bush Administration fears that Rove may not have control of enough Diebold voting machines to steal another election, and the time is now to clear up some loose ends like:

• the coup in Haiti and the kidnapping of Aristide (Aristide was returned to power during the Clinton interregnum, and the neocons always hated him);


• the murder of Mohamed Aboul Abbas, who was in good health seven weeks ago (he was murdered not for what he did, but to stop him talking about his employer, the Mossad);


• continuing moves towards a second coup attempt in Venezuela, all under the guise that Hugo Chavez is being 'undemocratic' (note the bizarre, and completely counterproductive, 'advice' by the United States Ambassador to Brazil to the President of Brazil to bend over and assume the American position on Venezuela and Cuba);


• more pressure on Syria (the unprovoked attacks on Syria are the most blatant evidence of the Israeli control of the White House);


• the shenanigans with the mercenaries caught in Zimbabwe, probably on their way to steal the oil in Equatorial Guinea?

I expect them to do something crazy about China before they play out the string.

Who is behind the violence in Iraq?

Whenever you see the disgusting American media laboring mightily to discover the answer to what seems to them to be an unfathomable mystery, you know you are looking smack dab into the face of another cover-up. So who is behind the violence in Iraq? This appears to be one of the greatest mysteries of all. The American military has had almost a year to figure it out, and we are left with essentially the same story they started out with, which is that it is being done by al-Qaeda (they now find that a better story than their other one, which involved 'deadender' Baathists). They have elaborated the story with a new boogie man named Abu Musab Zarqawi who was kind enough to leave behind an incriminating letter, a letter which is being analyzed to within an inch of its life. The great mystery to me is why 'evidence' produced by the Americans or the Iraqi National Congress still has any credibility at all, seeing as how every shred of 'evidence' produced by these inveterate liars up until now has turned out to be lies and fabrications. Zarqawi seems to be the new bin Laden, the old bin Laden being a little too quiescent to serve as a proper subject of American fear. In the absence of any real evidence, who do you think is behind the violence? Is it the Shi'ites? Why would they do anything to upset the country they feel they are about to control after years of powerlessness? Is it the Kurds? They expect to soon have their own state, and would be foolish to stir anything up now. Is it the Sunnis? Why would they incite violence against themselves when they are in the minority? Is it the Iranians? Why would they want instability in a country about to be run by an Iranian cleric (Sistani), and why would they risk the wrath of the Americans? Is it the Americans? Six months ago I would have thought this an excellent possibility, but Bush wouldn't do anything now to jeopardize his June yellow-bellied escape. Is it al Qaeda? The absence of any real evidence except for a letter and some wild American speculation - including the beginnings of a shaky case - after months and months of opportunities to really pin this on al Qaeda indicates to me that al Qaeda plays a small role in this, if it is involved at all. The absence of evidence is evidence. Who is the only group who really benefits from civil war in Iraq? Israel. After finally succeeding in using their neocon treasonous agents in the Bush White House to force the United States into this disastrous war, the last thing the Likudniks want is for Iraq to reconstitute itself as a free, extremely anti-Zionist, Islamic, and very rich country. A new united Iraq without sanctions against it would be a powerhouse, and its existence would make the result of the war an absolute disaster for the Zionist state. Months ago, I wrote about the ideas of Israeli journalist Oded Yinon, who advocated the break-up of Iraq as part of a larger Israeli strategy to defeat the Arabs by ensuring that they remain divided and at each other's throats. He spelled it out quite clearly in 1982:

"The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization."

The violence in Iraq is part of this strategy. The neocon propaganda about al Qaeda is intended to divert attention from the only party to gain from a civil war in Iraq.

Tyranny and the National Endowment for Democracy

One good thing that has come out of recent events in Haiti and Venezuela is that it has made us aware of another evil in the world that hides behind a nice name. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its sister organizations the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for International Private Enterprise, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (which is the Democrats' version of the same thing), and the Free Trade Union Institute, have all been definitively outed as fronts for the most reactionary elements in the American government (a hint at the connections is that Bush's risible speech on freedom in the Middle East was given before a NED meeting). Working with large amounts of American government money, they all work tirelessly to decrease freedom and democracy throughout the world. It is all very Orwellian: freedom means slavery and democracy means tyranny. NED played a role in Iran-Contra and is a supporter of the second craziest group of people in the world (after the Israeli settlers), the anti-Castro Cubans (note some of the questionable characters on the NED board). NED is playing a big role in destabilizing the democratically-elected government of Venezuela (and played a big role behind the unsuccessful coup), and was one of the main fronts along with IRI of the Bush Administration in the recent coup in Haiti. Don't be fooled by the misleading names of any of these vile groups.

The mechanics of the coup in Haiti

Ira Kurzban, President Aristide's American lawyer, was interviewed by Francisco Aruca, director and host of Radio Progreso Alternativa, and explains the mechanics of the coup:

" Let me be clear that this is not a rebellion. This was a coup d’etat. It was a coup d’etat directed by, operated by, and equipped by the United States intelligence services, after the US intelligence services weeded a group of people trained in the Dominican Republic. Some believe that some in this group were Dominicans, because people said that they didn’t speak Creole and they only spoke Spanish."

and:

"There were about forty people that crossed the Dominican border with weapons, including M16s, M60s, rocket propelled grenade launchers and other equipment. They had newly issued uniforms, flak jackets, ammunition stacked in a professional way and they came across the border for the sole purpose of doing a job for the U.S. intelligence services, and that job was to have the end game that we saw unfold in the last couple of days in Port au Prince."

and, on Operation 'Jaded Task', which was the cover for the preparation of the rebels in the Dominican Republic under the guise of training against 'terrorism' and border incursions from Haiti (see here, and here or here):

"A year before this armed commando group crossed the border there was a secret operation by the U.S. military called Operation J Project, and it was published in the newspapers on February 20, 2003.

The operation was ostensibly to train the Dominican army in counterinsurgency, but Dominican legislators complained about it because it was so secret even they didn’t know about it. They brought with them 20,000 M16 rifles and ostensibly gave them to the Dominican Army and gave them counterinsurgency training. At the same time Guy Philippe and Jodel Chamblain, who was an asset of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA, were in the Dominican Republic at the time, and - lo and behold! - a year later they are crossing the border with the same M16s, with other equipment, with a trained group."

and:

"They put pressure on Aristide to do something and when he did it they turned to the opposition and said, OK, now you are supposed to do what you agreed to do. The opposition said 'No' and they said, Well, Aristide you need to do more. This opposition was formed at the same time that Operation J Project was going on in the Dominican Republic. The International Republican Institute met with Apaid and others in the Dominican Republic, and formed the Group 184, of which Apaid was the leader."

and:

" So we now have the ultimate absurdity, which is the Secretary of State Powell calling André Apaid, after they refused to sign the agreement on Monday, and begged him 'with a wink and a nod' to agree to this proposal, and Apaid saying to him that they needed a few more days. And of course, as more days passed this commando unit is coming closer and closer to Port au Prince, they have released everyone from jail in Gonaive and Cap Haitien and they have given all the convicts guns, so now they have a unit of about 150-200 people, from the 30 or 40 original that started. So now they are approaching Port au Prince and all of a sudden Guy Phillipe stops. Why? He said that he was giving the United States a chance to do what they needed to do. Of course, the U.S. all of a sudden turns around and says Aristide must leave."

Aristide had disbanded the Army, international efforts to train the police had stopped, and the police were not properly armed, so the rebels were able to take over the country with an original cadre of only forty men, supplemented by the thugs they let out of jails along the way. If Aristide hadn't agreed to leave, his American bodyguards would have turned him over to those they were supposed to be guarding against (not very good advertising for Steele Foundation, as bodyguards who turn you over to your enemies aren't very good bodyguards!). One of the bodyguards claims Aristide left of his own free will and was not kidnapped, but asking this of an Aristide bodyguard is like asking the cat, sitting in a pile of feathers, if it had eaten the canary. The CIA-connected bodyguard firm was an essential part of the plot. Aristide, without an army, a police force, or bodyguards, was completely defenseless, and a tiny group of American-financed and -organized thugs were able to take over the country. Simultaneously with setting up the rebels, the Americans set up the opposition, and thus were able to run parallel streams of rebellion, both violent and quasi-constitutional. Unlike the debacle in Venezuela, the Haiti coup ran like clockwork. There are many lessons to be taken from a close study of the mechanics of the Haitian coup by any other leader who would like not to be deposed by a small group of American-sponsored thugs.

The American invasion of Venezuela

Here is an outstanding article by Alan Cisco on the current situation in Venezuela. You can see what Hugo Chavez and the majority of people in Venezuela have to put up with (I note that Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter is playing an absolutely shameful role in serving as the Bush Administration mouthpiece supporting the lies of the opposition). You can also see what is going to happen. The opposition doesn't have the legitimate votes they need for a recall vote, and despite the fact that Chavez has bent over backwards to allow them to try again, will come up short (Chavez' generosity is probably due in part to the fact that he is confident they do not have the votes). On the other hand Chavez has the votes he needs to greatly weaken the opposition and thus start to push through the much needed reforms. Fear of having some of the money they stole from the people of Venezuela taken back from them will put the opposition into a frenzy, and they will resort to violence, claiming that the riots are due to the fact that democracy has been denied to the people of Venezuela. The violence will be mostly perpetrated by hired goons, but will be played up into a crisis by the opposition-controlled press. This version will be retyped by the disgusting American media, and excreted onto the American people. The Bush Administration, working in a coordinated fashion with the opposition, will attempt to depict the violence as a threat to American interests in the country, particularly a threat to the continued oil supply. I wouldn't be surprised to see an incursion into Venezuela by American stooge forces from Colombia, which will be immediately blamed on Venezuela by the disgusting American media (this has already been tried). The Americans will then have the phony excuse they need to invade, both to protect the oil and to protect their ally Colombia. Otto 'Third' Reich and Roger Noriega are certainly dying to do this. The only issue is whether it is too dangerous a move politically for Bush to take in an election campaign. Despite complaints by everyone who has considered the issue, truckloads of Diebold voting machines are being delivered every day to American voting stations, and nobody seems to have the political will to do anything about it. Rove should be able to have Diebold set the voting machines to narrowly pick Bush, provided no political disaster occurs. If Rove already has the election in the bag, would he risk losing it over a possibly dangerous war in Venezuela, a war that could go seriously sideways and which will create a diplomatic uproar in Latin America? Unlike Haiti, Hugo Chavez has an army that is firmly behind him, and he is much more fully aware of who his enemy is than Aristide was. It is odd that the freedom and democracy of the people of Venezuela may turn on how crooked the upcoming American election is slated to be.

The set-up and kidnapping of Aristide

Kidnapped Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected with over 90% of the vote. Although there were problems with the election, as might be expected in a country that until recently has been ruled by murderous thugs (the same thugs who have now been restored to power by the grisly American/Canadian/French triumvirate, and who have been financed and supported by two American fronts, the 'National Endowment for Democracy' and 'International Republican Institute'), Aristide's election is regarded as representing the will of the people. The poor majority in Haiti still perceive Aristide as representing them. Out of 7,500 local elections, the results of seven were regarded as questionable. Those seven resigned, and Aristide has been trying to schedule new elections. The opposition failed to cooperate. In this amazing charade, the Americans used the democracy issue to both attack Aristide as a dictator and to deny him promised access to international aid and financing (Bush froze all multilateral development assistance to Haiti from the day he came into office), which then led to his being depicted as an ineffectual leader (American misuse of the IMF was also used to break up the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, a break-up which led directly to the recent wars in the Balkans). Canada chipped in by claiming that Aristide must negotiate with the murderous thugs, all the while knowing that Aristide had been trying to negotiate, but the thugs, knowing what was going to happen, refused to negotiate with him (by the way, what happened to the principled approach supporting international law of Canada and France exemplified by their views on the war on Iraq - or was it not so principled after all?). Aristide is effectively damned as a dictator (elected with 90% of the vote), who wouldn't cooperate with the opposition (murderous thugs who wouldn't cooperate with Aristide), who failed to schedule elections (elections really scuppered by the same murderous thugs), and who was an ineffective leader (because of the complete blockade of financing and aid imposed by American-controlled international agencies, all on the excuse of the alleged problem Aristide had with democracy and cooperation with the thugs). You have to weep at the way he was set up. The American planners of this coup cleverly established a distinction in the disgusting American press between the violent 'rebels', mysteriously supplied with weapons in the Dominican Republic, and the democratic 'opposition', but these were really two parts of the same group that has been trying to return to the 'good old days' of Papa Doc. On top of all this, Aristide has been kidnapped and is being held under house arrest in the Central African Republic (a country run by a stooge leader selected by France). From an interview (or here) with Aristide's lawyer Ira Kurzban by Mark Davis of the program "Dateline" from SBS Australia:

"In fact the president was kidnapped. The United States Government, I believe, organised a coup against the democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, used force, used threats and intimidation against him, then brought in a group of marines to escort him to a plane, put him on that plane and for the next 15 hours clearly kidnapped him to the extent that they would not allow him to make a telephone call, they would not allow him to get out of the plane when the plane stopped, they would not tell him where he was, they would not tell him where they were going and they insisted that he keep the shades down in the plane so he would not know where he was landing at any time."

And from President (and still President, as a 'resignation' signed under threats of imminent violence against himself and others can hardly be a binding document) Jean-Bertrand Aristide himself:

"I have always denounced the coming of this coup d’etat, but until the 27th of February, the day before, I didn't see that the crime was going to be accompanied by kidnapping as well. The 28th of February, at night, suddenly, American military personnel who were already all over Port-au-Prince descended on my house in Tabarre to tell me first that all the American security agents who have contracts with the Haitian government only have two options. Either they leave immediately to go to the United States, or they fight to die. Secondly, they told me the remaining 25 of the American security agents hired by the Haitian government who were to come in on the 29th of February as reinforcements were under interdiction, prevented from coming. Thirdly, they told me the foreigners and Haitian terrorists alike, loaded with heavy weapons, were already in position to open fire on Port-au-Prince. And right then, the Americans precisely stated that they will kill thousands of people and it will be a bloodbath. That the attack is ready to start, and when the first bullet is fired nothing will stop them and nothing will make them wait until they take over, therefore the mission is to take me dead or alive.

At that time I told the Americans that my first preoccupation was to save the lives of those thousands of people tonight. As far as my own life is concerned, whether I am alive or whether I am dead, that is not what’s important. As much as I was trying to use diplomacy, the more the pressure was being intensified for the Americans to start the attack. In spite of that, I took the risk of slowing down the death machine to verify the degree of danger, the degree of bluff or the degree of intimidation.

It was more serious than a bluff. The National Palace was surrounded by white men armed up to their teeth. The Tabarre area - the residence - was surrounded by foreigners armed to their teeth. The airport of Port-au-Prince was already under the control of these men. After a last evaluation I made during a meeting with the person in charge of Haitian security in Port-au-Prince, and the person in charge of American security, the truth was clear. There was going to be a bloodbath because we were already under an illegal foreign occupation which was ready to drop bodies on the ground, to spill blood, and then kidnap me dead or alive.

That meeting took place at 3 a.m. Faced with this tragedy, I decided to ask, 'What guarantee do I have that there will not be a bloodbath if I decided to leave?'

In reality, all this diplomatic gymnastics did not mean anything because these military men responsible for the kidnapping operation had already assumed the success of their mission. What was said was done. This diplomacy, plus the forced signing of the letter of resignation, was not able to cover the face of the kidnapping.

From my house to the airport, everywhere there were American military men armed with heavy weapons of death. The military plane that came to get me landed while the convoy of vehicles that had come to get me was near the tarmac at the airport. When we were airborne, nobody knew where we were going. When we landed at one place nobody knew where we were. Among us on the plane was a baby of one of my American security agents who has a Haitian wife. They could not get out. We spent four hours without knowing where we were. When we got back in the air again, nobody knew where we were going.

It was not until 20 minutes before we landed in the Central African Republic that I was given the official word that this is where we would be landing. We landed at a French Air Force base but fortunately there were 5 ministers from the government who came to welcome us on behalf of the President there."

This outrage against international law, social justice and democracy cannot stand.

Was Aristide Kidnapped?

Aristide says he was kidnapped. The Americans say he wasn't. Who you gonna believe?:

1. The Bush Administration has not the slightest sliver of credibility on any subject. They have lied through their teeth on every possible subject at every possible opportunity. Colin Powell says that the kidnapping allegations are "absolutely baseless, absurd". Colin Powell is a man who distinguished himself by going before the United Nations and telling a series of lies about Iraq that can only be described as spectacular. He has to go down as one of the biggest liars in history. It is a miracle that people are still prepared to give these people credibility on any subject. Their denials are usually 100% proof of the truth of what they are denying.


2. Aristide claims that the chief of staff of the U.S. Embassy in Haiti came to his home and told him that he and a lot of Haitians would be killed unless he left. A group of armed soldiers came to escort him to the plane. He calls his removal from power a "modern kidnapping" and a "coup d'etat". He said:

   "Agents were telling me that if I don't leave they would start shooting and killing in a matter of time."

   and, identifying the agents:

   "White American, white military. They came at night ... There were too many, I couldn't count them."

   
   


3. It is not just Aristide's word against the Americans, although that would be good enough. He has lots of corroborating witnesses. Father Michael Graves, an Orthodox missionary from New Jersey, said:

   "I have spoken to many witnesses who said the President was kidnapped. Police officers at the Presidential Palace said that he was escorted out at gunpoint. They forced him to sign something - this evidently is the statement they have that they say is his resignation."

   
   A senior bodyguard of Mr Aristide, who is in hiding for fear of his life, said that Aristide was forced to leave the country by heavily armed foreign soldiers who were:

   "white, I think American, but to be honest they could have been Canadian. I couldn't really tell the difference. They were in tropical civilian clothes but wearing flak jackets and carrying assault rifles."

   
   French radio station RTL broadcast an interview with a 'frightened old man' in Aristide's residence who said he was Aristide's caretaker and stated:

   "The American army came to take [Aristide] away at two in the morning . . . The Americans forced him out with weapons."

   
   Marie-Claude Malboeuf of the Montreal paper La Presse says a source told her "handcuffs had had to be put on the ex-president of Haiti before he took the threats of the diplomats" demanding his resignation "seriously."


4. The letter of resignation is itself a story. It was circulated to the press not by any Haitian institution, but by the U. S. State Department. It was dictated to Aristide by American officials. Aristide claims the document has been altered in that he signed a letter saying he would leave "if I am obliged to leave". This did not appear in the published version, probably because it contradicts the official American position. Scott McClellan, revealing more than he should have, goes out of his way to say that Aristide drafted and signed the letter.


5. Aristide's story is given a huge amount of credibility by the fact that what he claims happened is exactly what Hugo Chavez claimed was going to happen to him had the coup in Venezuela succeeded. Hugo Chavez saw an American plane at the prison where he was being held while he was pressured to resign. A resignation forced with threats of violence followed by a quick plane ride is clearly the American modus operandi of a coup. While American mocked the conspiracy theories of Hugo Chavez, the stories of Chavez and Aristide back each other up.


6. Aristide was being guarded by a privately-owned American security firm called the Steele Foundation. The White House blocked a last-minute attempt by Aristide to bolster this security by preventing reinforcements from the Steele Foundation from going to Haiti. U. S. officials forced a small group of extra bodyguards to delay their flight from the United States to Haiti from before the coup until after the coup. The CEO of the Steele Foundation, Ken Kurtz, when interviewed by Amy Goodman, says 'I cannot comment on that' a lot. Leaders should never rely on American-controlled security (the Saudis ought to be paying close attention to this).


7. Aristide's Prime Minister, Yvon Neptune, was interviewed by Kevin Pina and Andrea Nicastro, and said (or here):

   "The resignation of the President is not constitutional because he did that under duress and threat."

   After the new interim leader was sworn in Neptune was handed his own resignation letter to read.


8. If Aristide left of his own free will, why did he not know where he was going until he got there? When the pilot asked him where to go, do you think he said 'surprise me'?


9. The U. S. State Department and the New York Times claim that Aristide requested asylum in South Africa and the government of South Africa refused to give him asylum. This story is implausible on its face. Why would a black nationalist socialist government refuse to aid a black nationalist socialist leader? In fact, the South African ambassador to the United Nations, Dumisani Kumalo, confirms that Aristide did not request asylum in South Africa. Why would the U. S. State Department lie about this? Because they wanted to make it appear that Aristide had only one country that would take him, and therefore his current incarceration in the Central African Republic is not the doing of the Americans. The Americans may actually have told Aristide that the plane was going to South Africa, knowing that it was headed for the Central African Republic. They wanted to ensure that he could not immediately fly back to lead the resistance.


10. Officials in the Central African Republic have denied Aristide the use of a telephone, probably to stop him repeating his allegations. He's been whisked away to an obscure place he didn't know he was going to, he had no choice in the matter, he can't leave, he is being held under guard by French and African soldiers, and he can't even use the phone. If this isn't a kidnapping, I don't know the meaning of the word. If the White House isn't behind it, who is?

So who you gonna believe?

Canada versus the people of Haiti

Canada has played a shameful role in the kidnapping and coup in Haiti, pretending to be an 'honest broker' while secretly plotting with the Americans to further their 'Standard Operating Procedure' of subversion of popular governments in the Americas. The official Canadian position was that the democratically-elected leader should negotiate with the opposition, a laughable position and one that is an embarrassment. Aristide has always offered to negotiate. The whole problem in Haiti was caused because the opposition refused to negotiate. Since the Canadians knew this, the Canadian official position was pure bad faith, as bad as the Americans. Canadian Health Minister Pierre Pettigrew actually met with one of the thugs in Montreal, meaning that the conspiracy with the rebels may extend very deeply. Canada's deceit isn't lost on the other leaders in the Americas, and, by essentially siding with the Tonton Macoutes against a democratically-elected and very popular leader, Canada has completely blown its international reputation and fifty years of careful diplomacy going back to the days of Lester Pearson. In fact, it is possible that it was Canadian troops who snatched Aristide, as we know that Canadian JTF-2 special forces were in Haiti, and they have the advantage of speaking French. Fortunately, Canada won't be able to play this American lapdog role ever again, as its reputation as an 'honest broker' has now been permanently shattered.

The Kidnapping of Aristide

I've been intending to write about the approaching coup in Haiti (excellent short background summary here, and excellent long one here), a coup which has been predicted for a while now, particularly in an excellent series of articles in the Black Commentator by Kevin Pina. Then I intended to write about the conspiracy angles of the coup, but these have already been covered by the mainstream American media (even Drudge covered it for a while, until someone probably told him to cool it), proving again how easy the Bush Administration makes conspiracy theory. It appears that the material advantages to the Bushites of stealing Haiti are few, except for some enticing sweat shop action, but there are three main non-economic purposes of the coup:

1. As a rehearsal for the second coup attempt in Venezuela;


2. To keep the leaders of the Caribbean and Central and South America on their toes and on their best behavior towards the United States, and discourage any opposition to neoliberal policies favored by the American leaders (and any interference in the CIA's drug trade); and


3. Just to show it could be done after the abject and embarrassing failure of the coup in Venezuela, much as Ronald Reagan's attack on Grenada was a failed attempt, after a sound thrashing by a group of peasants in Vietnam, to prove the United States still had a penis.

With the failed attempt in Venezuela and the kidnapping in Haiti it is now possible to draw up an outline of what I assume is the contents of Otto 'Third' Reich's handbook on coups (Reich and Roger Noriega are almost certainly behind the plotting), an outline which will be useful in countering future attempts:

1. The first step is to finance and train the coup plotters. In both Venezuela and Haiti the coup plotters (or here) received material help from the United States, and were given refuge in the United States and military training in American schools (the aptly-named - so aptly they had to change the name - School of the Americas plays a big role in this). At the same time, aid and access to capital is restricted or denied to undermine the popularity of the elected leader (the IMF/World Bank thugs are used to deny aid and restructuring of debts).


2. The second step is to tell the disgusting American press to write the usual background of lies. The democratically elected leader is portrayed as a dictator and a thug, and the rabble opposition are portrayed as patriots yearning for democracy. In the case of Haiti, the coverage was obviously suspect because the disgusting American media was never able to explain why the fighters, the 'rebels', were not connected to the political opposition, and only grudgingly allowed that the background to both groups was the paramilitary thugs of Haiti's recent past.


3. The third step is to weaken the state through attacks by American-financed guerilla warfare in the hinterlands. The rebel successes in this war are exaggerated by the disgusting American press, and the conflict is depicted as forming a threat to Americans living in the country.


4. Where Venezuela differed from Haiti, and it is a crucial difference, is that American troops were never overtly in the country (although the CIA certainly was there, and American ships and planes were in the area). When the coup plotters grabbed Hugo Chavez, his personal courage meant they could not force him to resign, and his continued support by the military meant that he was able to regain control. His supporters rescued him before the plot could be carried out. The plan was obviously to put him on a plane just like Aristide, and remove him permanently from the country. The key to the coup in Haiti was that the Americans learned their lesson from Venezuela, and learned they could not rely on the local coup plotters to do their jobs. American troops were sent in, ostensibly to guard the safety of Americans, but were really there as a kidnap squad.


5. The fifth step, which is simultaneous with the fourth, is to have the disgusting American media report that the democratically elected leader has resigned. This creates the legal basis for the regime change, and also disheartens the supporters of the leader, who are fooled into giving up the resistance to the coup. The Washington Post was caught red-handed engaging in this deceit in the case of Venezuela, when they reported Hugo Chavez had resigned when in fact he had not. The disgusting American media were obviously instructed to do the same thing in the case of Haiti, reporting that Aristide had resigned, a lie that was only uncovered by reporting in Australia, by Agence France Press, and by some members of the so-called alternative media (it made the American press only because of Maxine Waters). It must be extraordinarily embarrassing to be an American journalist.


6. The sixth step, one where the Americans have learned another lesson from the debacle in Venezuela, is not to appear too eager to step in. Allow the covertly supported rebels to do their work, and pretend to stand back from the whole mess. At the same time, add an air of legitimacy by having some international stooges (Canada and France) support your position. Pretend to be engaging the opposition in a dialogue and looking for a compromise, all the while knowing that the opposition will not compromise because it knows what is coming.


7. The last step is to officially send in the American troops. The troops were sent in hours after Aristide had been kidnapped. Had they been sent in hours before Aristide had been kidnapped, they could have stopped the theft of democracy from the people of Haiti. American actions make completely clear the real American attitude towards democracy.

Leaders subject to this kind of attack should:

1. Immediately hire a good, well-connected American PR and lobby firm, to counter the lies told by the disgusting American press. These lies are so laughable that they should be easy to counter. In the case of Aristide, the slander that he was not democratically in power was based on a very small number of election irregularities, 7 (!) seats out of 7,500, which Aristide had promised to correct, but was unable to do so because of the failure of the opposition to cooperate. The failure of the international organizations controlled by the Americans to help Haiti contributed to the economic problems of the country, and allowed complaints about Aristide's failure to improve Haiti. He was obviously set up to provide the basis for the lies about his supposed wrongdoings told by the disgusting American media.


2. Ensure that there is a rescue plan in place for recovery of the leader in case he is snatched. Leaders should never be enticed into leaving an appropriate level of protection by their own people.


3. Get international peacekeeping troops in as quickly as possible. In the case of Latin America, the obvious troops would come from other Latin American countries.


4. Never, ever, allow even a few American troops into your country, even on the pretext of protecting the lives of Americans. Even a small group of troops can be an effective kidnap squad.

Aristide's mistake was to fail to see who his real enemy was. The one good thing that has come out of the attempted coup in Venezuela and the kidnapping in Haiti is that all the peoples of the Caribbean and Central and South America now know that the United States is an enemy of democracy and human rights, and will act ruthlessly to continue its exploitation.