[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
#3505: Appearance of mystery organs: Chamberlain comments (fwd)
From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>
> Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate all
> writings on Haiti, including those on Haiti123, and
> to take into account the absence of public sources
> for any assertion of fact.
What is this?? First we are not allowed to know
who or what is "Haiti123" and then we are told,
in effect, to "enjoy the rumours" (take into account
the absence of public sources" -- which I assume
go far beyond "official" statements).
Then "Alternative News Wire." Who are you? A question
to the list a few days ago politely asking this was met with
the usual dead silence that greets any such enquiry
to the left, who seem only interested in strictly controlled
and manipulated information -- just the sort of thing they
never tire of accusing others of.
So can we know who or what these two organisation are?
Or must we conclude they are some double-double-double
permutation of the good old CIA?? We are invited to spend
lots of time trying dig beneath sinister organisations (USAID
and dozens of others) yet here we are served up with the
very same secret organisations. Whatever happened to
Thank you, "Haiti123," for that run-down on the CEP and Léopold
Berlanger's CNO. There may've been violations of CEP rules
on that score, but why not also mention how last July, Préval
(and whoever) forced the CEP to amend the electoral law
to give Préval the final say on the election date, which violates
the Constitution's requirement (Art. 191) that the CEP must
"organiser and contrôler (les élections) en toute indépendance" ?
Yes, the CEP publicly "agreed" to that change (which was never
given publicity), but what was Préval doing forcing it on them
in the first place? Meanwhile, attention is diverted to the "evil"
Berlanger and his radio station, which has become a perfect
scapegoat for everything.
And the "kidnapping" of Claudy Myrthil, which does seem
to be bogus and a time-honoured electoral device in many
countries. Pretty rich the pouncing on that when the
Respected and Beloved Leader (sorry Kim... il-Sung) puts it
about that he has been the victim of eight assassination
attempts, when any examination will show that only about
three could reasonably be counted as such (though of
course that's bad enough and all are utterly condemnable).
I would just like to be told the truth now and again, instead
of being lied to.
Thank you, Ben Mayas, for your sober post pointing out that
Kevin Pina in fact avoided addressing most of the points I made.
Instead, Pina pulled the familiar old trick of simply recounting all
kinds of dreadful incidents from the coup years so that the reader
would be emotionally swayed and forget about the specific points
by the device of nudge-nudge wink-wink.
However, Pina's assertion that just after the coup, the foreign
press was dominated by accounts of Aristide's last-ditch speech
rather than all the blood is simply not true. Looks at the archives.
The unappetising and brutal style of US embassy political attaché
Ellen Cosgrove was of course a gift to all conspiracy theorists.
The fact that she told Pina that he "might have to stand trial for
the attempted assassinaton of a Haitian legislator" (the comical
and evil Eddy Dupiton) does not mean she was going to ensure
that that happened, as Pina implies.
And there we go again with the "devilish" (my quotes) Howard
French, whose employer, The New York Times, has always been
an object of weird and overblown fascination for all those same
conspiracy theorists (of course there have been CIA attempts to
penetrate the NYT and other papers, but are we to believe that the
paper is a branch office of the CIA? -- ridiculous, but a familiar
nonsense from the left).
I do not know whether the oddball Lynn Garrison was CIA, but
it is for sure that some people will assume any white foreigner
advising the coup leaders would be. It just doesn't follow, folks.
Those of us who knew the eccentric Garrison have a quite
different take on him.
A friend of mine made an interesting point recently, writing:
"Lavalas's rationale now, as to why Aristide won't denounce
the violence, is reminiscent of the bad old days, when attachés
ran around terrorising people and everyone knew they were
controlled and paid by the army, but the army said they were
nothing to do with them."
Papa Doc Duvalier used to have a slogan plastered all over the
place which said "Vouloir détruire Duvalier, c'est vouloir détruire
Haiti" (Whoever wants to destroy Duvalier, wants to destroy Haiti).
Is this what it's all come down to again?
How disappointing to reflect that Haiti may be going nowhere
because its charismatic leader and future president seems to have
simply sunk comfortably into the good old rotten political culture that
has cursed Haiti for so long. So many hopes, apparently now gone.
But I sincerely hope to be proved wrong.