Make sure charlien goes with `em to keep it on the up an up.......
Administration Denies Aristide Kidnapped
18 minutes ago By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The White House and Pentagon (news - web sites) on Monday dismissed allegations that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. forces eager for him to resign and flee into exile.With U.S. military forces already on the ground in the Caribbean nation and more on the way, chief presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's nonsense, and conspiracy theories do nothing to help the Haitian people move forward to a better more free, more prosperous future." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also vehemently denied that Aristide had been forced out by the United States, and Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) forcefully denied it as well, saying that Aristide boarded the plane willingly. McClellan told reporters that Aristide left on his own free will. "We took steps to protect Mr. Aristide and his family so they would not be harmed as they departed Haiti," he said. Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference, said he was involved in the diplomatic flurry preceding Aristide's departure, and "the idea that someone was abducted is inconsistent with everything I saw." "I don't believe that's true, that he's claiming that," Rumsfeld said. "I would be absolutely amazed if that were the case." An African-American activist says Aristide told him on the phone Monday that he was kidnapped at gunpoint by American soldiers and ousted in a U.S. coup d'etat. Aristide said he was being held prisoner at the Renaissance Palace in Bangui, Central African Republic, said the activist, Randall Robinson. McClellan said Aristide's aides had contacted the U.S. ambassador to Haiti on Saturday and asked if Aristide would be given protection by the United States if he resigned. The ambassador consulted with Washington, then called Aristide's aides and told them that if Aristide decided to resign, the United States "would facilitate his departure," McClellan said. "And we did." He said the United States arranged for a plane to fly to Haiti to pick up Aristide. The aircraft arrived about 4:30 a.m., McClellan said. Aristide went to the airport in the company of his own personal security guards, the spokesman said. Asked directly if Aristide left of his own free will, McClellan said, "Yes." Powell said flatly, "He was not kidnapped," and criticized U.S. congressmen for saying that Aristide had been kidnapped without checking with the Bush administration first to see what the story was. "He was not kidnapped. We did not force him on the airplane. He went on the plane willingly," Powell said. The secretary said Aristide wrote a letter of resignation and only then did the United States bring an airplane to help him leave the country.[url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=589&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_l...
Washington provided the transportaion (plane) for Aristide and delivered him to where HE desired to go. So, knock it off, I'm really sick and tired of all this crap. Pretty damn soon, some people who aren't too bright will soon start to believe all these phony claims.Enough already.Oracle :mad:[ 03-01-2004: Message edited by: Oracle ]
Bush or Rumsfeld should come out publicly and say that "we'd be happy to fly Aristide back to Haiti if he so desires".I don't feel too sorry for the Clinton installed dictator in any case.
We now have troops in 141 countries. When will the numbers be high enough for our rulers? What country will our puppet masters tell us to occupy next. Is there no end? Is that the reason for the 2005 draft? Are we destined to have troops in every country in the world? We are three quarters of the way there. Will that make America safer or will that cause more people to hate America? Just asking.
quote: An African-American activist says Aristide told him on the phone Monday that he was kidnapped at gunpoint by American soldiers and ousted in a U.S. coup d'etat. Aristide said he was being held prisoner at the Renaissance Palace in Bangui, Central African Republic, said the activist, Randall Robinson.
Randall Robinson: Smooth Talking Racist
By Anders G. Lewis
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 11, 2004
Randall Robinson, the godfather of the reparations movement, has finally taken his criticism of this country to its logical conclusion: he has moved out of the United States. Robinson?s new book, Quitting America: The Departure of a Black Man from his Native Land, recounts his growing disillusionment with his native land, and his decision to leave it and escape to the tiny Caribbean island of St. Kitts. Here, Robinson insists, a racist white majority persecutes blacks at home and crafts an imperialistic foreign policy to kill Arabs abroad. But in his new island home, people are friendly, crime is virtually non-existent, and white people are largely absent. In St. Kitts, Robinson writes, ?life is lived much as it has been lived. With quiet decorum and unassuming passion.? Before departing to his tropical paradise, Robinson had achieved a great amount of notoriety. A Harvard Law School graduate, Robinson became a leftist hero after he made numerous national television appearances, wrote several books and became the principle architect of the black reparations movement. Princeton University professor (and failed rap artist) Cornel West called Robinson ?the greatest pro-Africa freedom fighter of his generation in America.? Similarly, The Nation magazine, in its review of Robinson?s best-selling reparations manifesto The Debt, lauded him for his ?sweeping historical vision? and ?convincing? arguments. ?The benefits of Robinson?s proposal,? The Nation insisted, ?go beyond the merely psychological. By discussing the use of reparations, he focuses attention on one of the most important aspects of American racial inequality ? the staggering gap in wealth between black and white Americans.? Quitting America is also earning high praise. The Christian Science Monitor has dubbed it ?lyrical, logical, and furious.? The Monitor noted that some readers may be turned off by Robinson?s ?aggressive style,? but affirmed that ?readers who persist will find a minority point of view that?s difficult to hear in the mainstream media.? Robinson?s ?principled? ideas will startle ?conventional wisdom with its unfamiliar perspective.? That is a euphemistic way of saying the average American will be dumbfounded at his vicious attack on the greatest nation in the history of mankind. Frontpage Magazine has provided its readers with a strikingly different portrait of Robinson. Myles Kantor, for example, has called attention to Robinson?s uncritical embrace of Fidel Castro?s dictatorship (see Kantor?s ?The Will to Oppose Terror,? Frontpage, November 7, 2001). David Horowitz, in turn, has waged a tireless campaign to expose the racism and anti-Americanism of reparations proponents like Robinson (see Horowitz?s Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations For Slavery). Quitting America confirms these judgements, vindicates Horowitz and makes it clear that five basic, and related, characteristics define Robinson. The first is Robinson?s simplistic view of human behavior: one may say he is a racial determinist. In Robinson?s mind, all human action can be explained by the color of one?s skin. At no point in Quitting America does Robinson question the scientific fantasy known as race, or even attempt to define what race is. He has nothing to say about the rapidly growing rate of mixed marriages among young white people. Further, Robinson has no use for such factors as religion, nationality, or morally informed choice; his world revolves around skin color. Robinson is also defined by his demand for intellectual conformity within his own ?race.? Such conservative black scholars as John McWhorter, Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell have no place in Robinson?s world. Indeed, he seethes with hatred for Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. ?As for the two of them (Bush appointees) that are ours,? he writes, ?I am all the more ashamed?They are killers, remote perhaps, but killers nevertheless, like all the others, but more cowardly than the ordinary street types.? Powell, in particular, receives the harshest rebuke. He is, according to Robinson, a ?Ronald Reagan rectal success of a conscience-dead black man.? All this because Powell, Rice and others dare to think for themselves, rather than regurgitate Robinson?s anti-American bile. Robinson?s third defining characteristic is blatant disregard for historical fact. In particular, he mythologizes an Africa that outstripped the rest of the world in scientific and cultural progress. He hails Africa, not Greece and Rome, as the birthplace of democratic civilization. He insists that Europe before 1500 was a vast wasteland of ignorance, an allegation that would shock Plato, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Leonardo da Vinci and Geoffrey Chaucer. Robinson recounts how a friend visited a Timbuktu library and read ?a fourteenth-century African rejoinder to Machiavelli?s The Prince? ? a most impressive feat, when one considers that Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 (the 16th century). In discussing the modern world, Robinson claims, ?only white countries are capable of killing so many (people) at one time,? but fails to mention the horrible 1994 Hutu massacre of close to one million Tutsi in Rwanda. He also praises Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide as ?a passionate democrat? and ?one of the finest human beings I have ever known? but says not one word about his corruption and widespread human rights violations. And these are but a few representative examples of his tainted historiography. Robinson is no friend of truth. Robinson?s fourth defining characteristic is his red-hot hatred for America. America, he believes, is racist and imperialist. In Robinson?s fevered mind, Americans only act out of self-interest, think nothing of killing and starving millions, and seek to rule the world. Blacks and browns, he believes, should not waste their time on America, as it has ?ceased any pretense of effort on domestic racial and social justice issues.? ?Trying my very best,? Robinson writes, ?how could I, in good conscience, remain for [sic.] a country that has never ever, at home or abroad, been for me or for mine?? He continues, ?I can remember in my forty years of social activism no occasion where American policy was instinctually consistent with America?s stated creed of freedom.? Is Robinson living in the same country that waged a Civil War to free the slaves, threatened a second to end Jim Crow, has provided massive job-training programs for blacks, Affirmative Action to beneficially distribute all available jobs and billions more dollars in welfare programs to those who could not ?or would not ? find gainful employment? The same nation that just sacrificed 500 men and women to free the innocent people of Iraq from a violent dictator, no thanks to Robinson and his friends? Robinson does not just hate America, though; he also viscerally hates white people. Whites and ?white countries? (he would lump the multi-racial United States into this category) are of no use to blacks. He insists, ?the mere contact with whites invariably?has produced for us all [black people] one plague or another: slavery, colonialism, plunder, conquest, massacre, economic globalization, culture transplantation.? White people, wherever they are, pose a mortal threat to civilized and humane values. ?Western whites,? fumes Robinson, ?once well inside the place of another?s different, less pugnacious, more welcoming culture, destroy it, root and branch. For inexplicable reasons, they are seemingly constrained by some aberrant force of nature to disparage all culture, all history, all religion, all memory, all faces, all life not theirs.? Nonetheless, he asserts it is the whites who are racist, not him. ?Whites don?t give a sh-t what we think,? he proclaims. ?Never did. Never will.? Whites are, in sum, ?little more than upper primates,? exactly the kind of gutter language the Ku Klux Klan uses in regard to blacks. Unlike the Klan, Robinson gets rave reviews in the New York Times. Robinson has labeled Quitting America a ?testament of leave-taking, a single angry wind guttering in an angry wind of national hysteria.? He is right that this an angry book full of sound and fury. For black Americans if offers enslaving victimization; for whites, it offers bald hatred. In singing the song of racist persecution, Robinson demeans the sacrifices and successes of so many great black men and women from the past and present ? rebels, intellectuals, activists, judges, and public officials, people like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, A. Philip Randolph, Martin Luther King Jr., Clarence Thomas, and yes, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Robinson inexcusably denies the simple, obvious truth that black Americans (Robinson included) have benefited from a racial revolution that has profoundly transformed American society. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the growth of the black middle class and the presence of blacks in positions of political, legal and intellectual power are all testaments to these remarkable changes. For Robinson, these changes have never occurred, and America is a bastion of closet Klansmen and lynching parties. And what of Robinson?s solution: leaving the country? By leaving America for the picturesque beaches of the Caribbean, the wealthy Robinson has demonstrated that he favors self-indulgent separatism above engagement and political debate. Certainly, more progress is needed, particularly for blacks trapped in failing schools ? not by segregation but by their own leaders? fealty to unaccountable public school officials. Further progress, however, will never come if blacks listen to Randall Robinson. As David Horowitz has argued, the black community would be far better served ?by embracing America as their home, and defending its good: the principles and institutions that have set them - and all of us - free.? Randall Robinson has made his choice for another country; Americans are none the poorer as a result.
Seems easy enough to confirm or refute. Is there a letter of resignation? Why has the media not asked Aristide the circumstances of his departure?charlie
We either pulled Aristide or we didn't--who cares ? He has failed to hold it together--we did not need 60,000 'boat people' to deal with. I mean, whadda ya do ? :confused:
I care Tom O, and I think many others do too, Those who value the truth anyway.I would prefer that he left of his own volition. If that's not the case and this administration is trying to jam it's concept of a world order down another nations throat, I want to know that too!charlie
Released to the press by Maxine Waters. Any questions?
I said, "this administration", George! And referring to Iraq and Afghanistan of course, and not dictating what their constitutions shall consist of.Clifton is history, ancient history, move on George. That was then, this is now. And we must deal with today's events. Not rehash previous occurrences.charlie
Charlie, I read somewhere (but I can't find it right now) that they do have a signed letter of resignation in their possession.I think what happened is he may have been pressured to leave but not forced to leave, and now he is angry about it and is changing his story. Is there any doubt he would have been killed if he stayed in Haiti, surrounded by rebels?
Charlie, it was in my original post, in the last sentence in the article."The secretary said Aristide wrote a letter of resignation and only then did the United States bring an airplane to help him leave the country."
Well, I suppose, given time there will be confirmation of this letter of resignation. Until then...or until there is media coverage of him, I wait!charlie
Charlien,How can you claim on the one hand to be one of those people who care about the truth and then o the same topic write off any wrongdoings of the Clinton administration by saying its in the past.Do you care about the truth or are you just a democrat rump-swab willing to say anything no matter how stupid it makes you look in defense of your overall goal of pushing sociallism and destroying freedom?I think we all know the answer.
Rather presumptious on our part in both cases, George. I can have no influence on history, I can on what's going on today!charlie
'Rump swab'?, freedom? Kiss my ass! Deal with the original questions put forth, if you can. I await the truth, you can debate Clinton from years ago, it you like, but it adds nothing to the here and now!charlie
Charlie....arrangements have been made to ship your a** to Haiti in order for you to get the straight dope on Aristide, and those plunderers in his country.You can pick up your flight at Portland Jet Port courtesy of John Kerry.Charlie, please don't hurry to come back. Damn I am sick of you Charlie. You wouldn't be happy unless you believed there was a damn conspiracy afoot 24/7 by those bad Republicans.Oracle :mad: :mad:
I heard Sec. Powell give a detailed time line of the events on C-SPAN this evening. Rangel and Waters are full of beans.This whole kidnapping thing is all about pandering to the black vote. They are so shallow.
Considering the most dispicable race hustlers imaginable - Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, and Randall Robinson have their names attached to this story, its likely there is a conspiracy afoot. Although its probably not the sort charlien so desperately hopes for.
Clinton Administration--HISTORY John Kerrys Vietnam service--History President Bushs National Guard Service--History Yeah yeah yeah...But we keep listening to the "History" over and over if it serves the left.And the lefties Loooooovvveeeeeee BS....(now we change "History" in our schools)"Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing" "They have Bin Laden and will trot him out before the election." "Bush kidnaps Aristide" We should of left Aristide sittin right there...have ABC/NBC/CBS ect cover him getting hacked up.What would the headlines of read then? Right more BS....
What I find truly shocking in this whole Haiti debacle is that the Black Caucus wanted Bush to invade Haiti and make sure that Aristide was kept in power, without permission from the UN, without the permission of France, or Germany, or the Hague, and regardless of the fact that Aristide was an oppresive dictator who fixed elections. Even Kerry wasn't stupid enough to suggest that.
T Shortt hits the nail on the head at exactly how full of crap you are charlien. You aren't a rumpswab, you are more of a butt licker for the left.Interesting how waters throws out blatent lies hoping they will stick and when they are proven to be lies, oh well, the morons from the left say, "That (purely fabricated) accusation is in the past and its time to move on."Wake up, and smell the crap you're spreading.Come to think of it, since less crap probably comes out of your butt than your mouth, kissing it might not be the most unpleasant part of your anatomy to kiss.
Do I believe that George Bush would force Aristide out? Yes, in the blink of an eye.
Do I believe that Bill Clinton or John Kerry or John Edwards would do the same? Yes, in the blink of an eye. The people at the top here in the U.S. are birds of a feather and they fly together and they all take their orders from the same puppet masters.
I thought my earlier posts on this subject were quite reasonable actually:posted 03-01-2004 04:52 PM Seems easy enough to confirm or refute. Is there a letter of resignation? Why has the media not asked Aristide the circumstances of his departure?posted 03-01-2004 05:17 PM I care Tom O, and I think many others do too, Those who value the truth anyway.I would prefer that he left of his own volition. If that's not the case and this administration is trying to jam it's concept of a world order down another nations throat, I want to know that too!I still do! And I still await the truth, which I suspect lies somewhere between the rhetoric being put forth by both sides here.charlie
Two executives from the "big racism" industry are right at the center of this, and we all know they are objective, if nothing else.We trust Charlie and the others are just as suspicious of their agenda and motives as they are of others.We also note that John Kerry apparently thinks we didn't act soon enough in Haiti. Excuuuuuuuse me???I don't suppose there's any pandering to a particular voter identity group in that pronouncement!!
CBC: Bush helped rebels oust Aristide
By Hans NicholsMembers of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) yesterday accused the Bush administration of deliberately exacerbating the violence in Haiti to hasten the ouster of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.They charged that the White House misled lawmakers about its intentions as it undermined Aristide â€” who was restored to power in 1994 by the Clinton administration following a coup â€” and forced him to flee to the Central African Republic.Black lawmakers said the White House must prove that Aristide was not kidnapped.
Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.): â€œIt seems like the administration just wanted Aristide out.â€ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They demanded conclusive evidence that the Haitian leader â€” whose 2000 election victory was internationally condemned as fraudulent â€” was not forced out at gunpoint.â€œWhat makes this not a coup?â€ Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) asked at the United Nations after meetings with Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte.Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.) added: â€œWe are very troubled that this [Aristideâ€™s ouster] was a terrorist takeover.â€CBC criticism of the exiled leader was muted, despite long-standing international concern about his regimeâ€™s engaging in fraud, thug rule and the repression of opponents. Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.), a leading voice on international affairs in the CBC, told The Hill, â€œAristide made mistakes, but President Bush made mistakes, President Clinton made mistakes, but we donâ€™t run them out of office.â€White House spokesman Scott McClellan called any suggesting that Aristide was kidnapped â€œcomplete nonsense,â€ adding: â€œConspiracy theories do nothing to help the Haitian people move forward to a better, more free and more prosperous future.â€But in New York, the CBC lawmakers vowed to hold congressional hearings. The departure of Aristide marks a sharp downturn in relations between the White House and African-American lawmakers.Democratic lawmakers say the Bush administrationâ€™s policy on Haiti reflects a failure to respect democratic virtues there as much as elsewhere around the globe. Reacting to the decision to send U.S. and French peacekeepers, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, â€œHad peacekeepers been sent earlier, a political settlement that better respected the results of the last democratic election with less bloodshed and chaos could have been achieved.â€Just last Wednesday, Bush and 18 members of the CBC appeared to have found common ground on the need for U.S. intervention.After meeting with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, black lawmakers said they felt that the White House understood the urgency of the situation.Bush admitted fault for not acting sooner to stem the crisis on the impoverished Caribbean island.â€œThe president told us that he â€˜did not speak out loudly enough and soon enoughâ€™ on the humanitarian tragedy and political crisis in Haiti,â€ CBC chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) told The Hill last week. â€œThat acknowledgment helped us move forward,â€ said Cummings, in what he described as an emotional meeting as lawmakers tearfully described the human sufferingWednesdayâ€™s accord evaporated over the weekend. CBC members said Bush and his team intentionally allowed the situation to deteriorate to put Aristide and his family in physical danger. â€œWe could have nipped this in the bud, but it seems like the administration just wanted Aristide out,â€ said Payne. â€œIt was a self-fulfilling prophecy.â€â€œThey let it get to the point where the president and his familyâ€™s lives were in jeopardy and there was no other recourse to get him out,â€ Payne told The Hill. Payne argued that Aristideâ€™s widely criticized tenure as Haitiâ€™s first democratically elected president did not justify what he regarded as the Bush administrationâ€™s anti-democratic actions and quasi-support for the opposition. â€œThe opposition is a bunch of thugs and drug runners,â€ said Payne.Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), said, â€œWe were misled about their plan to force out Aristide. I donâ€™t think any member of Congress can trust what this administration now tells us.â€Meek has the highest concentration of Haitians of any congressional district. He said they are deeply divided about Aristide, but noted that Aristide loyalists protested in the streets yesterday, demanding assurances that he is safe.â€œEveryone has said that they donâ€™t agree with what President Aristide did in terms of treating the opposition, but the way [he was removed] is severely troubling.â€
Tuesday, Mar. 2, 2004 10:25 AM EST
Maxine Waters: Bush Official a 'Haiti-Hater'Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., charged Monday that Bush Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega was a "Haiti hater" who had engineered a "coup d'etat" to depose failed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide."Mr. Noriega at the State Department . . . . he is behind the whole plan," Waters told CNN. "He is known as a Haiti hater and he's in charge of this policy."The flamboyant one-time head of the Congressional Black Caucus complained that Noriega had a long record of "undermining Haiti, of denying them funding."Waters said the media hadn't been paying enough attention to Noriega, telling CNN, "You guys ought to find out his history and who he is . . . You really need to dig us up some information here."She said she personally spoke to both Aristide and his wife on Monday, who told her that he had been driven from power by U.S. diplomats backed by a phalanx of Marine guards.
In a later interview with the Associated Press, Aristide described the group as "white American, white military." Asked whether she had any reason to doubt Aristide's account, Rep. Waters said she trusted him more than she trusted her own government."Listen, I tend to doubt the State Department, and I tend to doubt Mr. Noriega and people who have been in charge of advancing this policy," she told CNN."I find that I've been lied to over and over again . . . So I have a lot of questions of my own government at this point."Bush officials have called the allegation that Aristide was kidnapped "absurd."Last week, Florida Congresswoman Corrine Brown complained to Mr. Noriega that the Bush administration had "a bunch of white men" running its Haiti policy. When Noriega reminded her that he was a Mexican-American, she responded, "You all look alike to me."Brown's subsequent apology did little to mollify Texas Rep Henry Bonilla, a key Bush congressional ally of Mexican descent, who is calling for Rep. Brown to resign."It is appalling that someone at this level of government would use racist language and not answer for it," Bonilla told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Saturday. "If a Republican had made such derogatory, insulting and discriminatory remarks, there would be a firestorm of outrage."
So how many MOAB's do we have??
Keep Racism Alive!!!
quote: Waters told CNN. "He is known as a Haiti hater and he's in charge of this policy."
~[i]Does this qualify as "hate speech"?[/i]
quote: "You guys ought to find out his history and who he is . . . You really need to dig us up some information here."
~[i]Does this mean Max supports the Patriot Act and its use when it serves her purpose?[/i]
quote: She said she personally spoke to both Aristide and his wife on Monday, who told her that he had been driven from power by U.S. diplomats backed by a phalanx of Marine guards.
~[i]Driven from power? Perhaps to safety in a bullet-proof SUV flanked by a convoy of Marines. Something tells me Max doesn't speak the same language as Aristide...[/i]
quote: Rep. Waters said she trusted him more than she trusted her own government.
~[i]I hear there is an job opening in Haiti for an experienced politician...time to move on, Maxxy![/i] :roll: