More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

Kerry Indicates He Would Continue Bush's Pro-Sharon Policy
(Ira Glunts, dissidentvoice.org, March 22, 2004)
Lately, Senator John Kerry has been reassuring voters that he will be as pro-Israel as President Bush. He has expressed his support for Sharon's policy of unilateral disengagement, building of the so-called security barrier and the political isolation of Yasser Arafat. . . . Senator John Kerry has been defining himself as a Presidential candidate who would, if elected, continue the Bush foreign policy in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you listen to what he is currently saying, you get a feeling that he wants voters (especially Jewish voters) to believe that a Kerry presidency would be even more supportive of the Sharon government, and actually less even-handed in its dealings with the Palestinians than the current administration. . . . Kerry "tried to exempt Israel from the [Democrat's] critique of Bush’s foreign policy." According to Kampeas, Foxman characterized Kerry as "agree[ing] with administration policy on isolating Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, [and] supporting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and on the security fence." . . . Unfortunately, Kerry seems to have now decided that it is not in his political interest to be expressing views which are not in accord with those of President Bush, the neo-conservatives in his administration or establishment Jewish American leaders. New York House Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Kerry supporter, has recently put out the word that Kerry was distancing himself from any remarks he made at the Council on Foreign Relations. John Kerry the Presidential candidate, who is actively seeking the Jewish vote, will not be supporting any negotiations starting from where the Taba negotiations left off. . . . The decision not to mention Taba is extremely disappointing to people who had hoped the Democratic candidate would propose a new direction for American foreign policy toward promoting peace in Israel/Palestine, one which challenges the Sharon government and Bush neo-conservative visions. . . . Last year Kerry told an Arab-American audience that the so-called security barrier that Israel was building was "an obstacle to peace." Now he claims he has no problem with the barrier, since its route has been altered. It seems Mr. Kerry's position has been altered to a much greater extent than the route of the barrier. The wall is still situated totally in occupied territory causing great hardship and in clear violation of international law. Also, it is still to be decided if the barrier will be built as recommended by the Israeli Army, to encircle most of the Palestinian population, thus creating virtual prisons for the Palestinian people. . . . Mr. Kerry published an article in a Brown University publication titled, "A Powerful Journey, An Essential Dream," where he wrote, "[i]n this difficult time we must again reaffirm we are enlisted for the duration - and reaffirm our belief that the cause of Israel must be the cause of America - and the cause of people of conscience everywhere. If these are the words of an honest broker, I would rather have the Bush team working for peace in the region. At least they occasionally pay lip service to the Palestinian position. Kerry ends his article with a slogan associated with the religious pro-settler bloc, "am yisrael chai" or long live the people of Israel. . . . Despite any indications to the contrary, I fear that those who thought Kerry may have contributed to the peace process in Israel/Palestine will be disappointed to learn of Senator's current public stance. Barring a sudden change of heart and a burst of courage, we must sadly assume that a President Kerry will be at least as pro-Sharon as President Bush. . . .

[COMMENT: Which brings us right to the point about the upcoming elections in November. There is very little difference between the positions of Kerry and Bush. They are cut from the same cloth, and that spells doom for America. Again we are faced with a choice between deciding which candidate is the lesser evil. .... However, voting for the "lesser evil" is still a vote for evil in my book.]

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 10:55 AM

 

Barbaric Israelis Edge Us Closer to World War
(Gilad Atzmon, Counterpunch, March 22, 2004)
Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was murdered at daybreak on Monday. Israel Air Force helicopters fired missiles at the car carrying the wheelchair-bound head of the Islamic group as he left a mosque near his house in Gaza City. It also appears Ariel Sharon was in direct command of the assassination operation, not entirely surprising considering his bloody history. . . . For those who fail to realise, today's barbaric Israeli act is an open call for a world war. It is the final wake up call for every Muslim around the world. It is violent proof that Israel isn't only against the Palestinians but rather against Islam. Israel killed a prime spiritual leader on his way out of the mosque. I have no doubt that this Israeli act won't be forgiven. I also have no doubt that many Israelis will pay with their life for Sharon's act. Moreover I am sure that sooner rather than later many innocent non-Israelis around the world will die just for being near by an Israeli embassy, Israeli consulate, a synagogue or even an American bank...This is the reality Sharon favours the most. . . . This is exactly what Israel wants: to turn the entire world into a victim of terror. . . . the right wing Israelis will suggest that the only method to guarantee Israeli security is to maintain the conflict with the Palestinian people and to let it escalate into an international battle. . . . Israeli right wing hegemony is fed by terror. And now there is a new need emerging. Israel is facing a demographic disaster. Within five years there will be a Palestinian majority in the territories controlled by Israel (between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River). This is literally the end of the Zionist dream. . . . For years Israeli warmongers have openly discussed 'transfer': the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. Considering the current world affairs and general opposition to Israel it is hard to believe that large scale ethnic cleansing would go ahead unless some colossal catastrophe was in place. Sharon is preparing the ground for such a disaster. He needs a war, a big one, something that will allow him to go wild, to go out of control, to initiate a campaign in which Israeli soldiers will become murderous squads ready massacre against the Palestinian civilians. Sharon wants to re-launch the 1948 Nakba. Sharon fully understands that this is what the Israeli public want. He is very good at reading their innermost desires. . . . The assassination of Sheikh Yassin is there to push the Palestinians towards acts that will allow the Israelis to impose the most murderous measures against the Palestinian civilians. Mr Sharon, a world acclaimed war criminal and serial murderer proved again that at least when blood games are concerned, he is one step ahead of the game.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 6:29 AM

 

Bin Laden's right-hand man slips net
(Rodney Dalton, The Australian, March 20, 2004)
BULLETPROOF LandCruiser at high speed bursting out of a tribal compound in Pakistan's South Waziristan region was just the latest infuriating setback in the US's quest to bring down the top of the al-Qa'ida tree. . . . The car, followed by two armoured vehicles and a phalanx of heavily armed militants able to wipe out dozens of crack troops sent to blast the terrorists from their nest, is believed to have contained Ayman al-Zawahiri, right-hand man to Osama bin Laden. . . . After mounting speculation that US and Pakistani forces ranged on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border were about to pounce on al-Qa'ida's key planner, a senior Taliban spokesman yesterday made the claim Washington least wanted to hear - that both Zawahiri and bin Laden were safe in Afghanistan. . . . "He may have slipped the net," the official said. . . . Stiff resistance from about 200 well-armed fighters holed up in fortified mud huts early in the week -- in the onslaught of Operation Mountain Storm, designed to rid the lawless border area of foreign fighters -- had led Pakistani officials to conclude they were close to a "high-value" target. . . . While it is still not certain al-Zawahiri was in the car, one Pakistani security official said the presence of high-powered bulletproof vehicles, and the high level of force used to provide covering fire for their getaway, supported that theory. . . . The battle against militants dug into the 30km-diameter region continued yesterday, with hundreds more troops joining the thousands already engaged, and mortars and helicopter gunships laying down a barrage of fire. . . . Hundreds of al-Qa'ida fighters are believed to be hiding in South Waziristan, the remotest and most conservative of Pakistan's seven semi-autonomous tribal districts. . . . In recent broadcasts, al-Zawahiri has described the war on terrorism as a war on Islam, and criticised Islamic leaders who co-operated with the US. . . . "(George W.) Bush appoints corrupt leaders and protects them," he said in a tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:39 PM

 

Europe and the US are now adrift
(Martin Jacques, The Guardian, March 17, 2004)
Spain confirms the huge impact the Iraq war has had on our world . . . The US and Britain now find themselves that bit more isolated. Spain's exit from the ranks of supporters of the Iraq war may have been surprising, but hardly unexpected. Its government, in its support of the invasion, defied not simply half the population, as in the case of Britain, but the overwhelming majority. Clearly there was a price to pay, which has been paid by the Aznar government, though only following a horrific and tragic event. Inevitably, it poses the question as to whether other governments which have defied the will of the people in such a flagrant manner might pay a similar price. There was barely a democratic country in the world where, at the time of the invasion, the majority of the people supported it - barring the obvious exception of the US. . . . the issue is big enough, persistent enough, extraordinary enough, then one day the government may have to pick up the tab for its defiance. Iraq is just that kind of issue. It is one of those rare historical moments that change the world and leave nothing quite the same afterwards. . . . The prime minister is now desperately trying to concentrate the mind of the nation on domestic matters. Yet Iraq will not go away. It will continue to haunt him until he leaves office; and probably for the rest of his life. . . . The refusal of Britain - or half of us at least - to go along with the war remains one of the most extraordinary political phenomena of the past 30 years. It points to a profound change in attitudes - concerning Britain and its place in the world - that no one yet really understands. . . . Yet on Iraq the left has, bizarrely, found itself in the majority. Bizarre, because for the past half-century, the right has monopolised the ground of foreign policy and military prowess, intimately associated as it is with our imperial history. Who would have guessed that the left, vanquished on more or less everything else, would find itself in a majority on the biggest international issue for decades, with British troops committed and a Labour prime minister leading the charge? The fact that public opinion could have run so much against the historical grain suggests much deeper changes are afoot. It is no longer safe to assume that the public will support American foreign policy: nor that the involvement of British troops in a military adventure will command automatic backing. . . . There is another twist to the Spanish story. Without the bomb outrage, perhaps the right would have won the election. Overwhelming popular sentiment against the war coupled with the terrorist attacks proved to be a lethal combination for the government. Generally, terrorist attacks tend to strengthen the hand of the incumbent government, but not in this case. Indeed, rarely has a terrorist attack proved so effective in persuading public opinion to move in the perpetrators' desired direction. That is another extraordinary feature of this episode. If it had been during the cold war, the effect would have been the opposite. Now, though, we are in a completely different magnetic field: even though no one is quite sure what forces constitute the field. . . . According to a Sky News poll yesterday, 20% of those who voted Labour in 2001 said, in the event of a terror attack, they would switch from Labour - the majority to the Liberal Democrats. . . . European politics is going somewhere very different from what we have been familiar with for so long. Western European opinion is now adrift from, and inimical towards, the US. It rightly abhors Israeli behaviour and is therefore unsympathetic towards US policy on the Middle East . . . Europe has lost its old global moorings. Its newly discovered independence of mind is born not of self-confidence, nor an expansive sense of its own future, but a growing alienation from the US, combined with a heightened feeling of insecurity about the world we live in and what Europe's place might be in it.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 10:01 AM

 

The hypocrisy of the west is beyond belief
(Peter Kilfoyle, The Guardian, March 16, 2004)
We see the Palestinian suicide bomber as a terrorist - but not Sharon, the overseer of the massacres of Shatila and Sabra. We abhor the killers of Omagh, but not yet those of Bloody Sunday. We rightly condemn the killing fields of Pol Pot, but not the murderous attacks of Nixon and Kissinger. To many in the third world, the hypocrisy of the west is beyond belief. . . . Remember that al-Qaida's original "mission" was to expel the communist-atheists from Afghanistan; get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia; and return the Palestinians to what is now Israel. We have now added the cause of Iraq to its prospectus. . . . Where does that leave the British government? Tony Blair must look at the Spanish election result and wonder. The Madrid atrocities appear to have aroused the deep reservations that Spaniards had about the war in Iraq. Their doubts were overlaid with a distrust of a government that precipitately sought to lay blame for the bombing at the door of Eta, for political advantage. . . . We are renowned as a phlegmatic people, but we are not forgiving to those who let the side down, whether at home or abroad. If such an attack were to take place here, the question would inevitably be whether our support for America's war against Iraq had made it more likely. . . . The prime minister in particular will now ruminate on this. If ever there was a case of an individual driving the nation into a war then it was him. People will inevitably link his personal crusade to any failure to forestall terrorist outrages. Thus the stakes for him have increased alarmingly. . . . The danger is that, in order to pre-empt the kind of hellish scenes witnessed in Madrid, the prime minister and his cabinet will crack down even harder on civil liberties than they have already. That creates political perils of its own, without any guarantee of achieving the desired end. A case of heads the prime minister loses, and tails his opponents win.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:29 PM

 

Spain threatens Iraq troop pull-out
(BBC News, 15 March 2004)
Spain's Socialist Party prime minister-elect says he will pull troops out of Iraq - unless the UN takes charge. . . . Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said: "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster." . . . He called for a grand international alliance against terror and an end to "unilateral wars". . . . The Socialists won a shock poll victory after voters appeared to turn on the government over its handling of the Madrid bombings that killed 200 people. . . . Spain supported the US-led war on Iraq despite much domestic opposition. It currently has 1,300 troops in the Polish-led multinational force in the central-south sector. . . . At a news conference in Madrid, Mr Zapatero said his priority will be a "systematic fight against terrorism of all kinds". . . . He again reiterated his opposition to the US-led war in Iraq, but said his government would maintain what he described as "cordial relations" with Washington. . . . However Mr Zapatero said President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair needed to "engage in some self-criticism" over their decision to invade Iraq. . . . Mr Zapatero said Spanish soldiers would be pulled out if there was no change in Iraq by the 30 June deadline for transfer of sovereignty. . . . Socialists won 42% of the vote, while the centre-right Popular Party won 38% in Sunday's general election, held in the wake of the Madrid train bomb attacks that killed 200 people. . . . The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government. . . . Mr Zapatero was - until Thursday's bombings - considered an outsider for Spain's top job. . . . While Mr Zapatero said his first priority was to tackle terrorism "in all its forms", he is thought likely to do it in a very different way than the outgoing government. . . . A larger than expected 77% of the electorate turned out to vote in the wake of last Thursday's attacks. . . . Our correspondent says the late swing to the Socialists raises one disturbing thought - if al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy.

[COMMENT: Another way to look at it is how a Spanish friend of mine put it, "... a clear example, in my opinion, of how the people, when consciouss of what is going on, can take control." Let's hope the US voters can become consciounscious this November without first having to experience any more violence.]

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:24 PM

 

A growing insurrection against the Saudi royals
(Robert Fisk, The Independent, 10 November 2003)
Osama Bin Laden has an awful lot of friends in Saudi Arabia. In the mosques, among the disenchanted youth, among the security forces, even ­ and this is what the West declines to discuss ­ within the royal family. . . . The enemies of the House of Saud want to make the kingdom ungovernable - just as America's enemies in Iraq want to make its occupation ineffective. . . . But the Saudi royal family - that part still desperate for US assistance - provided plenty of reasons during the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq for their Arab enemies to attack them. . . . For although they publicly said the US would not use Saudi military facilities during the war, they allowed the Americans to direct 2700 air sorties a day from the Prince Sultan Air Base - far more damagingly, they gave secret permission for 200 US aircraft at the base to fly 700 combat missions over Iraq daily. . . . So, Crown Prince Abdullah, the effective ruler of Saudi Arabia, must be feeling some frightening winds blowing across the Saudi desert. For Bin Laden's aim to destroy the royal family is shared by the American right wing. . . . When Laurent Murawiec, friend of the then US defence policy board chairman Richard Perle, gave his odd but damning assessment of Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the US and the "Kernel of Evil", he might have been Bin Laden spokesman. . . . Murawiec, who works with the Rand corporation and has been an executive editor of Executive Intelligence Revue presented a slide show to the Pentagon last year with titles that included "taking 'Saudi' out of Arabia". . . . A suspicion persists in Washington that the Saudi royal family is still trying to compromise with the country's religious hierarchy and its al Qaeda enemies. And Bin Laden's messages are still laced with venom for the House of Saud. Indeed, his original aim is to do what Murawiec demanded: to take the "Saudi" out of Arabia. . . . Could the Americans sit back and watch al Qaeda take over the nation's oil wells? There are those in the House of Saud who fear that now the US is in Iraq, it can - in the event of a revolution - just seize the oil fields in northern Saudi Arabia, leaving Riyadh and other cities to whichever Arabian ruler takes control.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 3:26 PM

 

U.S.-Sponsored Regime Change in Haiti
(Nirit Ben-Ari and Bill Weinberg, Alternet.com, 01 March 2004)

In the wee hours of March 1, US Marines landed in Haiti hours after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide reportedly succumbed to demands from an armed opposition movement that he step down and go into exile – although persistent rumors on the ground maintain he was actually arrested by US forces. . . . The rebel army, cobbled together from anti-government gangs and militias and led by former army officers, has achieved its aim of Aristide's ouster. It seems the cost will be the loss of Haiti's sovereignty to foreign occupation troops – yet again. . . . This overthrow had been in the making since December 1990, when Haiti's first free election was held. The winning candidate, with two-thirds majority, was the populist priest Aristide, backed by a vigorous grassroots movement known as Lavalas. But seven months later, Aristide's government was overthrown in a military coup. No government on earth recognized the military junta, but as Noam Chomsky noted: "Washington maintained close intelligence and military ties with the new rulers while undermining the embargo called by the Organization of American States, even authorizing illegal shipments of oil to the regime and its wealthy supporters." . . . The last elections took place in November 2000. Aristide won his second non-consecutive term – amid allegations of irregularities by the US and the opposition. Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official backed by the White House, won only 14 percent of the votes. To the dismay of Washington, Aristide was president again. . . . The US and international donors blocked financial aid, alleging the elections were "flawed." Aristide, in need of funds to implement his social plans for the country, was immobilized. Only in July 2003, the Inter-American Development Bank resumed loan programs. . . . Ira Kurzban, general counsel to the Haitian government, told Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now Feb. 25 that the US government was directly involved in a new military coup attempt against Aristide – and that the rebels fighting to overthrow his government are being backed by Washington. "This is a military operation," he said, "it's not a rag-tag group of liberators, as has often been put in the press." . . . In a Feb. 12 letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, US Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) wrote: "Our failure to support the democratic process and help restore order looks like a covert effort to overthrow a government. There is a violent coup d'etat in the making, and it appears that the United States is aiding and abetting the attempt to violently topple the Aristide Government. With all due respect, this looks like 'regime change.' How can we call for democracy in Iraq and not say very clearly that we support democratic elections as the only option in Haiti?" . . . Kevin Pina of Berkeley's KPFA Radio, writing for the on-line Black Commentator last April, noted that Otto Reich, President Bush's envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives, had arrived in Haiti the same week bombs began falling on Iraq. Reich came as part of a delegation representing the Organization of American States and the Caribbean Community Council with a stated mission of brokering an agreement between the Haitian government and the opposition. His visit coincided with reports from the Haitian police that uniformed soldiers of Haiti's abolished army had begun regular armed incursions into the Central Plateau region of the country from the Dominican Republic. . . . Otto Reich is a veteran of another US-sponsored armed insurgency against a popular government in a small, impoverished Latin American nation. Reich was the director of the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD) for Latin America and the Caribbean from 1983 to 1986 – at the height of the Reagan administration's covert wars in Central America. In 1987, he was accused by the Congressional probe into the "Contragate" scandal of engaging in "prohibited, covert propaganda activities" in his efforts to promote the Reagan administration's "contra" guerilla army in Nicaragua. He is today a top ideological and strategic mastermind of the counter-insurgency war in Colombia, and has been named as a behind-the-scenes figure in the failed April 2002 coup against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 8:34 PM

 

Repression of the Montagnards
The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity.

Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.

Click on the link above for the Human Rights Watch report on this situation.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 12:14 PM

 

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE SAYS ‘I WAS KIDNAPPED’ ‘TELL THE WORLD IT IS A COUP’
(Democracy Now!, March 1, 2004)
Multiple sources that just spoke with Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide told Democracy Now! that Aristide says he was "kidnapped" and taken by force to the Central African Republic. Congressmember Maxine Waters said she received a call from Aristide at 9am EST. "He’s surrounded by military. It’s like he is in jail, he said. He says he was kidnapped," said Waters. She said he had been threatened by what he called US diplomats. According to Waters, the diplomats reportedly told the Haitian president that if he did not leave Haiti, paramilitary leader Guy Philippe would storm the palace and Aristide would be killed. According to Waters, Aristide was told by the US that they were withdrawing Aristide’s US security.

TransAfrica founder and close Aristide family friend Randall Robinson also received a call from the Haitian president early this morning and confirmed Waters account. Robinson said that Aristide "emphatically" denied that he had resigned. "He did not resign," he said. "He was abducted by the United States in the commission of a coup." Robinson says he spoke to Aristide on a cell phone that was smuggled to the Haitian president.

Developing... RUSH TRANSCRIPT

MAXINE WATERS: ‘it’s like in jail, he said. He said that he was kidnapped; he said that he was forced to leave Haiti. He said that the American embassy sent the diplomats; he referred to them as, to his home where they was lead by Mr. Moreno. And I believe that Mr. Moreno is a deputy chief of staff at the embassy in Haiti and other diplomats, and they ordered him to leave. They said you must go NOW. He said that they said that Guy Phillipe and U.S. Marines were coming to Port Au Prince; he will be killed, many Haitians will be killed, that they would not stop until they did what they wanted to do. He was there with his with Mildred and his brother-in-law and two of his security people, and somebody from the Steel Foundation, and they’re all, there’s five of them that are there. They took them where they did stop in Antigua then they stopped at a military base, then they were in the air for hours and then they arrived at this place and they were met by five ministers of government. It’s a Francophone country they speak French. And they were then taken to this place called the Palace of the Renaissance where they are being held and they are surrounded by military people. They are not free to do whatever they want to do. Then the phone clicked off after we had talked for about five’we talked maybe fifteen minutes and then the phone clicked off. But he, some of it was muffled in the beginning, at times it was clear. But one thing that was very clear and he said it over and over again, that he was kidnapped that the coup was completed by the Americans that they forced him out. They had also disabled his American security force that he had around him for months now; they did not allow them to extend their numbers. To begin with they wanted them to bring in more people to provide security they prevented them from doing that and then they finally forced them out of the country. So that’s where his is and I said to him that I would do everything I could to get the word out. ‘that I heard it directly from him I heard it directly from his wife that they were kidnapped, they were forced to leave, they did not want to leave, their lives were threatened and the lives of many Haitians were threatened. And I said that we would be in touch with the State Department, with the President today and if at all possible we would try to get to him. We don’t know whether or not he is going to be moved. We will try and find that information out today.

MAXINE WATERS: First of all I think the people in this country should be outraged that our government led a coup de’tat against a democratically elected President. They should call, write. Fax with their outrage, not only to the State Dept. but to all of their elected officials and to the press. We have to keep the information flying in the air so people will get it and understand what is taking place. And for those of us who are elected officials we must not only get to the President, we must demand that he is returned to claim his presidency if that is what he wants. If you can recall what happened in Venezuela when Mr. Chavez was’they tried to force him out and they had someone step into the presidency and he had not resigned his presidency and he got it back. I did not have that conversation with President Aristide but we must meet with him and we must talk with him and be prepared to protect him.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 10:06 AM