Archive for the 'Clinton' Category

Hillary off in a rush to… Haiti, where she vows to undermine democracy.

This sort of stuff never ceases to amaze me. In the midst of the huge upheaval in Egypt, Hillary Clinton is on a plane. To where?

To Haiti.

The reasons for this should be extremely insightful to how she and the current US government really feel about democracy.

A) Haiti is trying to ignore US demands that certain candidates be thrown out of the upcoming election, and

B) Ignoring the US explicit wishes (especially highlighted by recent wikileaks revelations) Haiti has announced it will issue a passport to Aristide.

Of course, the threat is on the table, that if the Haitian slaves do not obey their masters in Washington D.C., all financial aid will be cut off to this extremely poor and beleaguered nation. Truly, our nation is run by secret combinations, of the type that would make Book of Mormon authors blush. An insightful article on this situation comes from Mark Weisbrot:

Haiti Resists US Pressure; Announces Aristide Can Return

It didn’t get much attention in the media, but U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did something quite surprising on Sunday. After taping interviews on five big Sunday talk shows about Egypt, she then boarded a plane to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. The most impoverished country in the hemisphere, not exactly a “strategic ally” or a global player on the world’s political stage.

Inquiring minds might want to know why the United States’ top foreign policy official would have to go to Haiti in the midst of the worst crisis she has faced. The answer is that there is also a crisis in Haiti. And it is a crisis that – unlike the humanitarian crisis that Haiti has suffered since the earthquake last year – Washington really cares about.

Like the Egyptians, Haitians are calling for free and fair elections. But in this case Washington will not support free and fair elections, even nominally. Quite the opposite, in fact. For weeks now the U.S. government has been threatening the government of Haiti with various punishments if it refuses to reverse the results of the first round of its presidential elections. Washington wants Haiti to eliminate the government’s candidate and leave only two right-wing candidates to compete in the second round.

Just three weeks ago it looked like a done deal. The Organization of American States (OAS) “Expert Verification Mission” did a report on Haiti’s November 28 presidential elections, and on January 10 it was leaked to the press. The report recommended moving the government’s candidate, Jude Celestin, into third place by just 0.3 percent of the vote; leaving right-wing candidates Mirlande Manigat, a former first lady, and Michel Martelly, a popular musician, in first and second place, respectively. This was followed with various statements and threats from U.S. and French officials that Haiti must accept this change of result. U.S. officials strongly implied that aid to Haiti would be cut if the government didn’t do as told. It looked as if desperately poor Haiti would have to give in immediately.

But then there was pushback. President Preval noted that six of the seven “experts” from the OAS Mission were from the U.S., Canada, and France – the three countries that led the effort to overthrow Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004.

Then the OAS report was found to be so deeply flawed as to be worthless in determining which candidates should proceed to a second round. The report ignored the problem of more than 150,000 missing votes that – given the voting patterns in the areas affected – would have shifted the result to Celestin. It also examined only a sample of the tally sheets, and did not use any statistical inference to estimate how the 92 percent of the tally sheets that it did not examine might have affected the result.

The call for new elections began to grow. It was joined from the beginning by 12 presidential candidates who had competed in the deeply flawed first round, in which only about a quarter of Haitians voted. This was down from 59.3 percent in the previous presidential election, partly because the country’s most popular political party – Fanmi Lavalas – was excluded from participating in the election.

Preval himself has been reported in the press to support new elections.

Then yesterday the Congressional Black Caucus leaders, in their first break with the foreign policy of the Obama administration, issued a statement that they called a “response to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s support of the OAS report”:

“The CBC urges the United States and the international community to uphold the ideals of fairness and support a new Haiti election process that is free and fair, respecting the rights of the Haitian people.”

But it is the rights of the Haitian people that Washington does not want to respect. Another reason that very likely contributed to Hillary Clinton’s sudden trip to Haiti on Sunday was that the Haitian government decided it is willing to issue a diplomatic passport to former President Aristide, who has been kept in exile in South Africa since the U.S.-organized coup ousted him in 2004. Recent Wikileaks cables show that the United States has pressed hard to keep him out of Haiti, and to keep him from exerting any influence from abroad. And his party, Fanmi Lavalas, was banned from participating in the November elections, as in other elections since he was removed from the country on a U.S. plane in 2004. Aristide issued a statement on January 19  that he was ready to come home.

It may seem strange that U.S. officials care so much about controlling a government as poor and without influence as Haiti, but they clearly do, having organized the overthrow of the country’s elected president in 2004, and contributed to the coup and subsequent death squads when Aristide was overthrown the first time in 1991.

The amazing thing about the last two months is that they are meeting such resistance from within Haiti, and from the Congressional Black Caucus – which forced then President Bill Clinton to restore Aristide to the presidency in 1994. Signs of further international support for democracy in Haiti were shown on January 26, when the OAS resolution on Haiti failed to endorse the recommendations of its own Mission’s report – due to resistance from left governments in Latin America. And the Rio Group, which includes 23 nations encompassing almost all of Latin America and the Caribbean, was also blocked by left governments from passing a resolution on Haiti.

The government of Haiti is scheduled to announce its decision on the elections today, and it may well fold under the enormous pressure from Washington. But with Aristide’s return imminent, the battle is far from over.

It is not only Egyptians that want free and fair elections, and not only the Arab world that is resisting U.S.-backed tyranny.


America’s hypocrisy shines bright in Egypt.

So funny to see Hillary Clinton saying that, “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,”,8599,2044902,00.html#ixzz1COoCSMvg

while El Baradei has a different idea about this:

Of course, it’s this cozy relationship our leaders and businessmen in the US have with dictators that gives us a bad name in the world. Clinton has been quoted as saying, “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States.”


Of course, Egyptians on the street are a bit upset that the gas cannisters being fired at them by their police have, “made in the USA,” inscribed on them. That is the least of our assistance to them though, we also give 2.2 billion dollars and all sorts of high tech weapons to the Egyptian dictatorship.

Bush had quite a cozy relationship with Mubarak as well: “Our friendship is strong. It’s a cornerstone of — one of the main cornerstones of our policy in this region, and it’s based on our shared commitment to peace, security and prosperity.  I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. President, to give you an update on my trip. And I appreciate the advice you’ve given me. You’ve seen a lot in your years as President; you’ve got a great deal of experience, and I appreciate you feeling comfortable in sharing that experience once again with me.  I really appreciate Egypt’s support in the war on terror.”

Here is Obama encouraging Mubarak to reform: “No, I tend not to use labels for folks. I haven’t met him. I’ve spoken to him on the phone.  He has been a stalwart ally in many respects, to the United States. He has sustained peace with Israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region.  But he has never resorted to, you know, unnecessary demagoging of the issue, and has tried to maintain that relationship. So I think he has been a force for stability. And good in the region. Obviously, there have been criticisms of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt.  And, as I said before, the United States’ job is not to lecture, but to encourage, to lift up what we consider to be the values that ultimately will work – not just for our country, but for the aspirations of a lot of people.”

Now the US calls for immediate reforms. This is why the US is hated around the world.

Now, there are rumors that Sunday, the army will crack down mercilessly on the protests after stirring up some staged violence on the part of the protesters and the US will likely condone the violence in favor of, “stability.” And so the story goes.

Hillary as an intermediary while Gaza suffers

This article from the ABC News claims that Hillary, as Secretary of State gives both Palestinians and Israelis reason to be hopeful. 

“Israelis and Palestinians know Bill Clinton and they know Hillary Clinton,” said David Makovsky, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The Palestinians remember her embracing Arafat’s wife Souha, the Israelis remember her as the senator from New York who threatened Iran.”

Having taken both pro-Palestinian positions and pro-Israeli positions may, in fact, strengthen her position as a diplomat and negotiator, rather than hurt it, said Tamara Wittes, a Brookings Institute fellow who specializes in the Arab-Israeli peace process.

“It is a mixed legacy that could serve her well on both sides,” Wittes said.

I feel that Hillary is hardly one to be recognized for having an even hand when it comes to dealing with Palestinians and Israelis.  Her prostration before AIPAC in her campaign should be enough to point that out to the casual observer.  Hillary has pointed out in the past her deep disdain for the Palestinian people (this quote also is quite revealing in regards to the type of “democracy” Hillary supports in other nations and is probably the type of democracy those in power in the US seek for all nations we feel should be submitting to our will).  After the 2006 elections which placed Hamas into power, Hillary said:

“First, I don’t think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. If we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win instead of signing off on an electoral system that advantaged Hamas.”

That electoral system happened to be a democratic election declared to be free and fair by multiple international observers.

After Condi Rice’s famous callous quote about Lebanon going thru “birth pangs” while Israel was bombing and massacring it’s people, I look forward to what sort of statement Clinton will make with regard to the sufferring of the Palestinian people at the hands of Israel.  I appreciate this man’s viewpoint here comparing Abraham’s treatment of Sodom and Gommorah to Barak and Olmert’s treatment of Gaza:

As I sit and view the reports, photos and live videos streaming in from Gaza I find it impossible to make sense of it all. As a boy growing up in Israel and attending a regular public school, I remember being taught the story of Abraham, the patriarch arguing with God over the decision to destroy the city of Sodom:

“And Abraham stood before the lord. And Abraham drew near, and said: wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked, perhaps there be fifty righteous within the city, wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the righteous that are therein? ..and the Lord said, if I find in Sodom fifty just men within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes” Genesis, 18, 23-26. 

One has to admire Abraham for his tenacity, arguing with God almighty for the sake of fifty men! Today I heard the argument made that only 50 innocent people were killed in this attack and I thought: God would have spared Gaza for those 50, but not Ehud Barak.

One has to admire the idea that no matter what, the life of innocent civilians is sacred and must never be compromised. There can be no doubt that among the 1.5 million people residing in Gaza there are more than 50 righteous men and women, but more importantly, there are 800,000 children in Gaza. According to reports in the Israeli newspapers hundreds of thousands of children were on their way to and from school at the time that 50 Israeli war-planes began a nine hour attack during which they dropped more than 100 tons of bombs.

The sufferring is immense in Gaza as we speak and it is little wonder that the Gazans feel they have nowhere to turn but to armed resistance:

A senior United Nations official says many families in Gaza are facing a life-or-death situation as Israel continues its military offensive against Hamas.

U.N. humanitarian coordinator Maxwell Gaylord released a statement Wednesday calling on Israel to allow more humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza, which has been under a blockade.

Israel has said it will allow 2,000 tons more of food and medical supplies into Gaza, and will allow some wounded Gazans to seek medical treatment in Israel.

But Gaylord says it is crucial for the Karni border crossing to be opened to allow in wheat grain for the 750,000 people who rely upon U.N. relief.  He also says electricity needs to be fully restored to Gaza’s hospitals, which are overwhelmed with patients.

Many other world powers and human rights groups have expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

The Palestine Red Crescent Society issued an emergency appeal for nearly $7 million on Wednesday to support its humanitarian efforts in Gaza. The aid organization is part of the International Red Cross.

Britain on Wednesday pledged $10 million in emergency aid for the Gaza Strip, calling the human cost of Israel’s assault on the Palestinian territory “unacceptable.”

Britain’s aid minister, Douglas Alexander, expressed concern about dwindling medical supplies, food stocks and power cuts, which are affecting hospitals and other essential services in the Gaza Strip.

Greece’s foreign ministry said it will send two planes with 30 tons of medical aid to Tel Aviv, which will then be transported to Gaza.

On Tuesday, Israel allowed about 100 aid trucks and five ambulances into Gaza.

Nearly 400 Palestinians have died in five days of Israeli air strikes, and hundreds more have been wounded.

Even the resistance to the Iranian government, which is supported by the US government, is speaking out against Israel’s cruel dealings in Gaza:

“The Iranian Resistance strongly condemns Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip and the killing of innocent civilians, in particular women and children,” the NCRI said. “It mourns with the Palestinian people, especially with the relatives of those who have perished.”

Of course, I must always bring out the prophecy of Isaiah found in chapter 59 with regards to the nature of Israel:

 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

  3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.

  4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

  5 They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.

  6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.

  7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

  8 The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

Chomsky on Georgia/South Ossetia

Noam Chomsky has written a delicious new piece on the Georgia/South Ossetia/Russia/USA situation.  He writes very nicely about the US position of sheer hypocrisy with regards to US claims that the invasion of sovereign nations is not how one treats other nations in the 21st century (was everyone able to keep a straight face when that one was utterred?).

However, I continue to hear the US official line repeated, for example, on NPR the other day as the newscaster spoke of Russia’s “attack on Georgia” as the main problem in the August conflict. 

Here’s an excerpt:

It is a thought that often comes to mind, again in August 2008 during the Russia-Georgia-Ossetia war. George Bush, Condoleezza Rica and other dignitaries solemnly invoked the sanctity of the United Nations, warning that Russia could be excluded from international institutions “by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with” their principles. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations must be rigorously honored, they intoned – “all nations,” that is, apart from those that the US chooses to attack: Iraq, Serbia, perhaps Iran, and a list of others too long and familiar to mention.

The junior partner joined in as well. British foreign secretary David Miliband accused Russia of engaging in “19th century forms of diplomacy” by invading a sovereign state, something Britain would never contemplate today. That “is simply not the way that international relations can be run in the 21st century,” he added, echoing the decider-in-chief, who said that invasion of “a sovereign neighboring state…is unacceptable in the 21st century.” Mexico and Canada therefore need not fear further invasions and annexation of much of their territory, because the US now only invades states that are not on its borders, though no such constraint holds for its clients, as Lebanon learned once again in 2006.

“The moral of this story is even more enlightening,” Serge Halimi wrote in Le Monde diplomatique, “ when, to defend his country’s borders, the charming pro-American Saakashvili repatriates some of the 2,000 soldiers he had sent to invade Iraq,” one of the largest contingents apart from the two warrior states.

Prominent analysts joined the chorus. Fareed Zakaria applauded Bush’s observation that Russia’s behavior is unacceptable today, unlike the 19th century, “when the Russian intervention would have been standard operating procedure for a great power.” We therefore must devise a strategy for bringing Russia “in line with the civilized world,” where intervention is unthinkable.

There were, to be sure, some who shared Mark Twain’s despair. One distinguished example is Chris Patten, former EU commissioner for external relations, chairman of the British Conservative Party, chancellor of Oxford University and a member of the House of Lords. He wrote that the Western reaction “is enough to make even the cynical shake their heads in disbelief” – referring to Europe’s failure to respond vigorously to the effrontery of Russian leaders, who, “like 19th-century tsars, want a sphere of influence around their borders.”

Patten rightly distinguishes Russia from the global superpower, which long ago passed the point where it demanded a sphere of influence around its borders, and demands a sphere of influence over the entire world. It also acts vigorously to enforce that demand, in accord with the Clinton doctrine that Washington has the right to use military force to defend vital interests such as “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources” – and in the real world, far more.

Read the rest here:

The US government pays obeisance to the Jewish lobby at the AIPAC convention

The AIPAC meeting with everyone who is anyone in politics in attendance is truly a disgusting sight.  It is there that all politicians go to sell their souls to the devil if they haven’t already done so.  McCain opened the meeting today speaking of how weak Obama is on Iran and how he’s naive and so forth.  He called for tougher sanctions on Iran and showed that he would be the toughest candidate when it comes to Iran.  This, of course, to numerous standing ovations:

You can read here about the vast power of AIPAC over US politicians:

And you can check here on the power the Jewish lobby has over US foreign policy here:

Pepe Escobar has written a really nice piece here though that outlines a basic history of AIPAC and gives a summary of what is happening right now at their annual meeting as nearly the entire US government bows down before their power.

Warning:  Don’t read this stuff after a large meal.

Hillary wants to obliterate Iran… even our allies cringe.

I’m glad to see that Borzou Daragahi is as disgusted as I am over Clinton’s comments the other day about obliterating Iran.  Daragahi has increasingly impressed me as a very reasonable journalistic voice for the LA Times.  He says:

Better be careful what you say in the heat of a political campaign. It could have global repercussions.

Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vow to “obliterate” Iran, presumably with nuclear weapons, if it attacked Israel on her watch was duly noted in the U.S.

Jaded American insiders shrugged off the remark as typical campaign season bluster, filed away with myriad other exaggerations and gaffes.

But it prompted shock overseas as well as headlines from Bulgaria to New Zealand .

The statement triggered alarm bells in the Persian Gulf, which would likely suffer the consequences of any war between Iran and the U.S. In a harshly worded editorial, the Saudi-based daily Arab News trashed Clinton’s comment today as insane:

This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day.

The paper generally stays  true to the line of the Saudi government, which is a key U.S. ally. But criticism of the remark also came from even friendlier quarters.

In the United Kingdom, which has been a steadfast U.S. ally in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as on the issue of Iran, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a ranking British diplomat, criticized Clinton’s remark as gratuitous:

While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequence of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is not probably prudent … in today’s world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country.

In other news, it is interesting to see India standing up to the USA.  With nearly 3 times the population we have, its about time they stopped taking their marching orders from the USA.

Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee Wednesday said the United States could not arrogate to itself the right to determine whether Iran’s nuclear program was peaceful or not because it is for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to decide on the nature of Iran’s nuclear program, reported local newspaper the Hindu on Thursday.

    “We are advising Iran that since it is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has some obligation to international treaties. We are telling the United States ‘do not take on yourself the responsibility whether Iran was manufacturing weapons or not. Leave it to the IAEA, the designated authority’, “Mukherjee said during an interaction with reporters at an orientation program on parliamentary reporting in New Delhi Wednesday night.

    “It is not for me or for Iran to certify… it is for the IAEA to convince themselves whether ‘Tehran’s program is peaceful,” he said.

    The minister’s remarks came one day after a spokesman of the Indian External Affairs Ministry said India could do without any guidance on Indian ties with Iran.

Radical preachers and their “hate speech” against the morally impeccable USA.

Would Hillary Clinton have been able to handle this man for her preacher?  A Reverend who says the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today?


Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator
Impeach Cheney