Discussion:
Asunto: Castillo Lara
(demasiado antiguo para responder)
PM
2005-07-19 11:36:26 UTC
Permalink
--
http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:49:34 -0000
De: "Noticuba Internacional" <***@yahoo.com>
Asunto: Castillo Lara

Castillo Lara
Por Eduardo Casanova

Analitica / Noticuba Internacional

Caracas,18 de julio de 2005

Los insultos del teniente coronel Ch?vez Fr?as al Cardenal Rosalio
Castillo Lara son una vejaci?n a todos los venezolanos, y la m?s
clara demostraci?n de la condici?n de fascista primitivo del militar
que, para desgracia de nuestro pa?s, se convirti? en Presidente de
Venezuela en 1999. El fascismo, el nacional socialismo, es una de las
manifestaciones m?s grotescas de la antidemocracia, encarnada por
igual por el stalinismo y el hitlerismo, que por fortuna para la
humanidad murieron como poderes en el siglo XX. Por desgracia, no
murieron del todo. Como sucede con el c?ncer, despu?s de que los
tumores fueron extirpados, varias c?lulas enfermas quedaron
circulando por el mundo, y hasta un pobre ?rgano atrasado y
primitivo, llamado Cuba, permaneci? minado por la enfermedad. En
otras partes del mundo tambi?n hay ?rganos enfermos, como China y
Corea del Norte, pero en el caso de China, la enfermedad es otra, y
en buena parte la compensan con remedio econ?micos que nada tienen
que ver con el mal antiguo. Corea del Sur, en cambio, es un ?rgano
tan da?ado como el del Caribe, que llega a niveles que en verdad nos
resultan incomprensibles. Y en las elecciones de diciembre de 1998,
las c?lulas metast?sicas de atraso se fijaron en un ?rgano debilitado
por setenta y tantos a?os de petr?leo: Venezuela. La Venezuela
enferma de militarismo, de corrupci?n, de abuso de poder y de
facilismo, cay? en manos de un grupo de aventureros corruptos y
atrasados, encabezados por el teniente coronel que ayer insult? de
manera grosera a uno de los hombres m?s honorables, m?s dignos y m?s
honrados que ha producido Venezuela, que es el Cardenal Rosalio
Castillo Lara.

No se trata de un hecho religioso. Estoy seguro de que los jud?os,
entre quienes tengo muy buenos amigos, respetan profundamente al
Cardenal Castillo Lara y se sienten ofendidos como venezolanos por
los indultos enfermizos del domingo. Se trata de un hecho pol?tico,
que viene a demostrar que el militar golpista desprecia profundamente
a todos los venezolanos. Y cualquier psiquiatra sabe que esa es una
de las m?s claras pruebas de psicopat?a, de sociopat?a, que puede dar
una mente primitiva.
PM
2005-07-19 15:09:33 UTC
Permalink
SAPINGO ...

Mira lo que me envia una amiga desde Miami...

Hola Pedro!
Espero que Raisa y tú se encuentren bien.
Estoy muy triste por la situación de Cuba. Estuve mirando un programa ayer por TV y la población se encuentra que no sabe qué hacer, nada les avisaron del paso del huracán, y están sin lo más imprescindible para subsistir. Como sabes el gobernante ha rechazado la ayuda de EEUU y de la Unión Europea. No hay médicos tampoco porque el innombrable los ha enviado a Venezuela. En Cuba ha llegado la hora de Dios, querido amigo.
Muchos cariños,
Ana

- http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm


"pariguayo" <***@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: ***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
no, a los gusanos.
PM
2005-07-19 15:13:24 UTC
Permalink
OPINION DEL MEDICO CUBANO ,

JEFE DE BARRIO ADENTRO,

EN ARAGUA, VENEZUELA , QUE SE ESCAPO A LOS USA.


.........................el enemigo no son los medicos Cubanos señores,

Amigos,
Esto me lo enviaron desde Miami, lean:

Amigos y compatriotas,

Esta noche el canal 22 de Miami

(dirigido a la Comunidad latina y de Cobertura limitada al Sur de la Florida),

Una periodista Cubano Americana llamada Maria Elvira Salazar presento
un panel integrado por 3 Medicos Cubanos de los cuales uno fue jefe de la Mision Barrio Adentro en Aragua y se escapo a los Estados Unidos y ahora vive aqui.

Los otros dos uno es un medico Cubano radicado en Miami y el otro un medico Cubano recien llegado hace dos meses a USA.

El panel se completaba con tres Venezolanos de los cuales
uno es el Vice-Presidente de la Federacon Medica de Venezuela,
un abogado Venezolano asilado aqui en Florida
y un cronista politico antichavista.


El tema en discusion era: Hasta que punto esta afectando la profesion medica la presencia de los 20 mil medicos Cubanos en Venezuela? Otro invitado a distancia y por via telefonica fue el Presidente de la Federacion Medica Venezolana, Leon Natera, quien oyo y opino desde Caracas. Los comentarios tuvieron origen en la manifestacion de medicos contra los Cubanos acaecida este viernes 15 de Julio en Caracas y la reciente noticia del incremento de 10 mil medicos mas en el futuro inmediato.
Lo mas importante de este programa, que estuvo muy animado, fueron las opiniones emitidas por el medico Cubano que logro venirse a USA luego de haber trabajado para el programa Chavista y usar Venezuela como puente para escaparse a USA.

Este medico, bastante rustico en su hablar dijo entre otras cosas las siguientes:

" Los Venezolanos van a saber lo que es Comunismo 'sabroso' de aqui a cuatro años",

la periodista Salazar le inquirio:

Por que Ud. dice eso? El se limito a responder: "Toda la estrategia del gobierno de Chavez esta montada a base de mentiras y apariencias calculadas y estudiadas para hacer caer en trampas a la oposicion y desgastarla ante la opinion popular de manera que se siga desprestigiando y el resolverse mayor apoyo popular".

Segun sus palabras, el que controla el gobierno en Venezuela es Fidel Castro y no es necesario disfrazar a militares como medicos pues segun su opinion los militares Cubanos se mueven a su antojo en Venezuela, y el que "alli manda es Fidel" (sic).

Asimismo afirmo que SI SON verdaderos MEDICOS los que mandan a Venezuela y que el argumento de que son militares es una argucia mediatica de Chavez quien se fotografia con
"esbirros" disfrazados para que salga la torpe oposicion Venezolana a declarar contra ellos y luego ser desmentida por estos funcionarios medicos Cubanos que:
1.. Salen de Cuba para tratar de ganar mas de los 20 Dolares que ganarian alla en la isla.
2.. Estan vigilados por la G8 (policia secetra Cubana), los Circulos Bolivarianos y hasta por la obtusa Oposicion que les sigue pista cada uno con un motivo diferente para mantenerlos "a raya".
3.. Que supuestamente van a sitios donde los medicos Venezolanos no quieren ir y son expuestos a barriadas peligrosas.
A esto siguio un mentis del presidente de la Federacion medica quien dio muestras de seguir creyendo en el "barniz de democracia que aun queda en Venezuela", invocado un estado de derecho que esta mas que conculcado con los procederes mas que irregulares del "gobierno" de Chavez.

y con la transformacion de la Constitucion a conveniencia del payaso...

Un punto importante que se manifesto en el encuentro es que tanto Chavez como Castro estan usando la tactica de DIVIDE Y VENCERAS lo cual produce un desgate de opinion publica y un enfrentamiento entre galenos locales y los intrusos "voluntarios cubanos".

Asi pues, en lugar de la Oposicion servirse de "informantes" dentro de los medicos llegados de la Isla lo que se produce es el acecho de los mismos por los medios y el logico repliegue de estos en busqueda de mantenerse fuera de la isla y enviarle dinero a sus familias en desmedro de los profesionales Venezolanos quienes llevan mas de 5 años de sueldos congelados. )

NOTA MIA ...( PEDRO MARTORI )

( muchos de esos medicos cubanos , son mas anticastro y antichavez que los propios venezolanos ...pero en la mentalidad xenofobica , obtusa y pretenciosa de la oposicion venezolana, eso no parece ser algo interesante para la causa de la Democracia en Venezuela.)

El medico Cubano Americano tuvo una interesante propuesta:

invitar al presidente de la FMV a "facilitar" un puente aereo para sacar a los 20 mil Cubanos y traerselos a USA oayudarlos a salir de alli.... para ver como harian los dos nefastos gobiernos ,para seguir manipulando a sus connacionales en sus intrincados proyectos.

Por otra parte, se reitero la necesidad que el Venezolano ATERRICE y REACCIONE que se enfrenta a un ignominioso sistema : el fascismo-mafioso de Castro

y del cual , --- el Venezolano--- al parecer no termina de darse cuenta que no se puede luchar limpiamente contra un oponente tramposo, traidor y tan sucio .

VENEZUELA NO ES UNA DEMOCRACIA.

Mi humilde opinion en mi condicion de Venezolano e inmigrante es reforzar la idea de la necesidad de mas documentacion de la oposicion para lograr convencer y hacerse de aliados.

Pongo el ejemplo de los Estados Unidos: aqui simplemente NO PUEDEN EJERCER MEDICOS EXTRANJEROS y en los sites de informacion se disuade firmemente de que vengan a USA a menos que se apliquen a las pruebas de revalidacion las que son verdaderos FILTROS para determinar si son o no competentes los candidatos.

Aun cuando la posicion legalista y financiera de la FMV suene loable,

el enemigo no son los medicos Cubanos señores,

ellos son simples monigotes de un gobierno totalitario.

El enemigo para los Venezolanos es CHAVEZ y punto. No nos equivoquemos!


FMV = federacion medica venezolana
--
http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm


"PM" <***@progressiion.net> a écrit dans le message de news: FP2dnXvAvP2-ikDfRVn-***@look.ca...
SAPINGO ...

Mira lo que me envia una amiga desde Miami...

Hola Pedro!
Espero que Raisa y tú se encuentren bien.
Estoy muy triste por la situación de Cuba. Estuve mirando un programa ayer por TV y la población se encuentra que no sabe qué hacer, nada les avisaron del paso del huracán, y están sin lo más imprescindible para subsistir. Como sabes el gobernante ha rechazado la ayuda de EEUU y de la Unión Europea. No hay médicos tampoco porque el innombrable los ha enviado a Venezuela. En Cuba ha llegado la hora de Dios, querido amigo.
Muchos cariños,
Ana

- http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm


"pariguayo" <***@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: ***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
no, a los gusanos.
PM
2005-07-19 16:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Titulares Cadena Global

Nacionales


-Este martes inician juicio contra Carlos Ortega

-Moncada: Marcha universitaria de hoy es inmoral

-Oficialismo asegura que hoy aprobarán reforma a Ley del BCV

-Herrera Campíns se recupera de una aneurisma abdominal


Economía


-Banca logra máximo nivel de depósitos en últimos 4 años

-Venezuela comprará bonos de deuda externa ecuatoriana


Empresas y Negocios


-LUX y Sony Entertainment premian con cambio de apariencia

-Con Air France puede comprar ahora y viajar en octubre


Finanzas al Día


-Cadivi autoriza Bs. 565 millardos para comercio con Perú


Petróleo


-Pdvsa invierte US$2.840 millones en obras de desarrollo


Gran Caracas


-Chacao premió el talento académico estudiantil

-Freddy Bernal anunció creación del Plan Dignidad

-El Hatillo premia a sus excelentes estudiantes


Internacionales


-Presidente Chávez asume la presidencia pro témpore de la CAN

-Director Gabrielli asumirá presidencia de Petrobras

-Después de tres décadas Irak obtendrá préstamo del BM


Máquinas y Pilotos


-Suerte dispar para Jorge Julio y Juan Rincón

-Trasolini, Rodríguez y González festejaron en día del niño

-Red Bull secunda a Ferrari y amplía acuerdo comercial


Deportes


-La vinotinto disputará amistoso con Islandia

-Caracas FC deja listo su nuevo escenario

-Lance Armstrong embalado rumbo a su séptima corona
--
http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm

OPINION DEL MEDICO CUBANO ,

JEFE DE BARRIO ADENTRO,

EN ARAGUA, VENEZUELA , QUE SE ESCAPO A LOS USA.


.........................el enemigo no son los medicos Cubanos señores,

Amigos,
Esto me lo enviaron desde Miami, lean:

Amigos y compatriotas,

Esta noche el canal 22 de Miami

(dirigido a la Comunidad latina y de Cobertura limitada al Sur de la Florida),

Una periodista Cubano Americana llamada Maria Elvira Salazar presento
un panel integrado por 3 Medicos Cubanos de los cuales uno fue jefe de la Mision Barrio Adentro en Aragua y se escapo a los Estados Unidos y ahora vive aqui.

Los otros dos uno es un medico Cubano radicado en Miami y el otro un medico Cubano recien llegado hace dos meses a USA.

El panel se completaba con tres Venezolanos de los cuales
uno es el Vice-Presidente de la Federacon Medica de Venezuela,
un abogado Venezolano asilado aqui en Florida
y un cronista politico antichavista.


El tema en discusion era: Hasta que punto esta afectando la profesion medica la presencia de los 20 mil medicos Cubanos en Venezuela? Otro invitado a distancia y por via telefonica fue el Presidente de la Federacion Medica Venezolana, Leon Natera, quien oyo y opino desde Caracas. Los comentarios tuvieron origen en la manifestacion de medicos contra los Cubanos acaecida este viernes 15 de Julio en Caracas y la reciente noticia del incremento de 10 mil medicos mas en el futuro inmediato.
Lo mas importante de este programa, que estuvo muy animado, fueron las opiniones emitidas por el medico Cubano que logro venirse a USA luego de haber trabajado para el programa Chavista y usar Venezuela como puente para escaparse a USA.

Este medico, bastante rustico en su hablar dijo entre otras cosas las siguientes:

" Los Venezolanos van a saber lo que es Comunismo 'sabroso' de aqui a cuatro años",

la periodista Salazar le inquirio:

Por que Ud. dice eso? El se limito a responder: "Toda la estrategia del gobierno de Chavez esta montada a base de mentiras y apariencias calculadas y estudiadas para hacer caer en trampas a la oposicion y desgastarla ante la opinion popular de manera que se siga desprestigiando y el resolverse mayor apoyo popular".

Segun sus palabras, el que controla el gobierno en Venezuela es Fidel Castro y no es necesario disfrazar a militares como medicos pues segun su opinion los militares Cubanos se mueven a su antojo en Venezuela, y el que "alli manda es Fidel" (sic).

Asimismo afirmo que SI SON verdaderos MEDICOS los que mandan a Venezuela y que el argumento de que son militares es una argucia mediatica de Chavez quien se fotografia con
"esbirros" disfrazados para que salga la torpe oposicion Venezolana a declarar contra ellos y luego ser desmentida por estos funcionarios medicos Cubanos que:
1.. Salen de Cuba para tratar de ganar mas de los 20 Dolares que ganarian alla en la isla.
2.. Estan vigilados por la G8 (policia secetra Cubana), los Circulos Bolivarianos y hasta por la obtusa Oposicion que les sigue pista cada uno con un motivo diferente para mantenerlos "a raya".
3.. Que supuestamente van a sitios donde los medicos Venezolanos no quieren ir y son expuestos a barriadas peligrosas.
A esto siguio un mentis del presidente de la Federacion medica quien dio muestras de seguir creyendo en el "barniz de democracia que aun queda en Venezuela", invocado un estado de derecho que esta mas que conculcado con los procederes mas que irregulares del "gobierno" de Chavez.

y con la transformacion de la Constitucion a conveniencia del payaso...

Un punto importante que se manifesto en el encuentro es que tanto Chavez como Castro estan usando la tactica de DIVIDE Y VENCERAS lo cual produce un desgate de opinion publica y un enfrentamiento entre galenos locales y los intrusos "voluntarios cubanos".

Asi pues, en lugar de la Oposicion servirse de "informantes" dentro de los medicos llegados de la Isla lo que se produce es el acecho de los mismos por los medios y el logico repliegue de estos en busqueda de mantenerse fuera de la isla y enviarle dinero a sus familias en desmedro de los profesionales Venezolanos quienes llevan mas de 5 años de sueldos congelados. )

NOTA MIA ...( PEDRO MARTORI )

( muchos de esos medicos cubanos , son mas anticastro y antichavez que los propios venezolanos ...pero en la mentalidad xenofobica , obtusa y pretenciosa de la oposicion venezolana, eso no parece ser algo interesante para la causa de la Democracia en Venezuela.)

El medico Cubano Americano tuvo una interesante propuesta:

invitar al presidente de la FMV a "facilitar" un puente aereo para sacar a los 20 mil Cubanos y traerselos a USA oayudarlos a salir de alli.... para ver como harian los dos nefastos gobiernos ,para seguir manipulando a sus connacionales en sus intrincados proyectos.

Por otra parte, se reitero la necesidad que el Venezolano ATERRICE y REACCIONE que se enfrenta a un ignominioso sistema : el fascismo-mafioso de Castro

y del cual , --- el Venezolano--- al parecer no termina de darse cuenta que no se puede luchar limpiamente contra un oponente tramposo, traidor y tan sucio .

VENEZUELA NO ES UNA DEMOCRACIA.

Mi humilde opinion en mi condicion de Venezolano e inmigrante es reforzar la idea de la necesidad de mas documentacion de la oposicion para lograr convencer y hacerse de aliados.

Pongo el ejemplo de los Estados Unidos: aqui simplemente NO PUEDEN EJERCER MEDICOS EXTRANJEROS y en los sites de informacion se disuade firmemente de que vengan a USA a menos que se apliquen a las pruebas de revalidacion las que son verdaderos FILTROS para determinar si son o no competentes los candidatos.

Aun cuando la posicion legalista y financiera de la FMV suene loable,

el enemigo no son los medicos Cubanos señores,

ellos son simples monigotes de un gobierno totalitario.

El enemigo para los Venezolanos es CHAVEZ y punto. No nos equivoquemos!


FMV = federacion medica venezolana


--
http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm


"PM" <***@progressiion.net> a écrit dans le message de news: FP2dnXvAvP2-ikDfRVn-***@look.ca...
SAPINGO ...

Mira lo que me envia una amiga desde Miami...

Hola Pedro!
Espero que Raisa y tú se encuentren bien.
Estoy muy triste por la situación de Cuba. Estuve mirando un programa ayer por TV y la población se encuentra que no sabe qué hacer, nada les avisaron del paso del huracán, y están sin lo más imprescindible para subsistir. Como sabes el gobernante ha rechazado la ayuda de EEUU y de la Unión Europea. No hay médicos tampoco porque el innombrable los ha enviado a Venezuela. En Cuba ha llegado la hora de Dios, querido amigo.
Muchos cariños,
Ana

- http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm


"pariguayo" <***@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: ***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
no, a los gusanos.
Super User For Ever
2005-07-19 17:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Titulares Cadena Mariconi
Se jodieron los gusanos chicago: la policia pone las fotos
y los datos de personas que usan los servicios de prostitutas
en la red por 30 dias para que familiares y amigos los vean....

ESA es la "libertad" y esos son los "derechos humanos" que
la gusanada quiere llevar "al mundo".....


The Chicago Police Department in conjunction with the Mayor's office
have now made prostitution solicitors' information available online. By
using this website, you will be able to view public records on
individuals who have been arrested for soliciting prostitutes or other
related arrests.

The following individuals were arrested and charged for either
patronizing or soliciting for prostitution. It is not a comprehensive
list of all individuals arrested by the Chicago Police Department for
patronizing or soliciting for prostitution. The names, identities and
citations appear here as they were provided to police officers in the
field at the time of arrests.

Click here to see a list of the statutes and their descriptions.

All photos and information will automatically be removed after thirty
(30) days from the arrest date.
These individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court
of law.


http://www.chicagopolice.org/ps/list.aspx
PM
2005-07-20 04:25:18 UTC
Permalink
por Alberto Luzárraga *
Columnista
Nueva York
E.U.
Futuro de Cuba Org
La Nueva Cuba
Julio 19, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------




Hace tres años publiqué un artículo que titulé

"Cuba: ¿Transición al Neo Fascismo? Conectando los Puntos" .

Repasando hoy, lo que expresé entonces, le hallo la misma vigencia pero mucha más urgencia. En aquel artículo dije: "El fascismo, como sintetizó felizmente una persona con quien conversaba, no es sino comunismo privatizado. La cúpula técnica más joven, que no es lo mismo que Castro, sabe que los comités, asambleas, etc. no resuelven nada excepto dar empleo a los cotorrones ideológicos. El fascismo es más práctico. Selecciona a un buen empresario con pocos escrúpulos y frecuentemente le da un monopolio. Claro está, con carta blanca para que lucre con tal de que produzca. Eso incluye el "derecho" a explotar a sus trabajadores y la obligación de compartir sus utilidades con el régimen y sus funcionarios que así nutren sus cuentas extranjeras. La ley de inversión extranjera y las empresas mixtas fueron el primer paso y se lo vendieron al comediante en jefe como la única tabla de salvación."

El proceso se acelera y se intentan captar las mentes con propuestas que no son sino frases vacías, o slogans que tienen un origen sospechoso. No significa que todos los que las usan sean sospechosos pero si es justo decir que muchos no han pensado en este complicado juego de ajedrez más allá de la primera jugada y quieran que no caen en 'guanajadas.' Veamos la más común, la 'solución pactada.' En principio suena bien. Nos ponemos de acuerdo, no hay sangre y todos seremos felices. Es un claro 'tiro'a la aspiración normal de todo ser humano y por eso tiene 'gancho' psicológico. Pequeño detalle: Un pacto serio y perdurable requiere por los menos dos partes equilibradas y bien representadas.

¿Cuáles serían las partes en esa 'solución' no pensada a fondo?
De un lado Lage, Alarcón, y comparsa (o sus 'apoderados' si hay que vestir la mona) y de otro una oposición que ellos han mantenido dividida y fragmentada, y por ello sin poder fraguar una verdadera unión ideológica. En criollo: esa es pelea de víbora contra víctima amarrada, porque la víbora sí tiene una ideología y es seguir disfrutando de sus bienes mal habidos y del poder. Si se requiere que la víbora aparente ser majá (no es venenoso) no hay ningún problema, y en eso andan algunos.

Para que existan dos partes legítimas se requiere un cambio a fondo en las estructuras del poder. Es lo que ha ocurrido en Europa Oriental, España, Chile, etc. Esos cambios usualmente no tienen una sola fase sino varias. En la primera fase se resquebraja el monopolio del poder, la oposición se organiza y se une en demandas comunes que usualmente son demandas de libertades. Sobre esas no inciden las diferencias ideológicas. La Asamblea de la Sociedad Civil en Cuba (cualesquiera sean las deficiencias que usted amigo lector quiera achacarle) es un primer paso en el proceso conducente a la primera fase.

En las fases que siguen, las fuerzas opositoras cobran cohesión, depuran o controlan los elementos infiltrados que SIEMPRE HAY (por eso se llama totalitarismo) y obtienen cada vez mayores concesiones de un grupo gobernante que sabe de sobra en que consiste el desastre creado. En buena parte conceden porque el apoyo exterior va condicionado a la democratización.

Y todo eso requiere el desalojo de la cúpula del poder y su sustitución por mandos medios que no estén enriquecidos ni tengan las manos manchadas de sangre.
Entonces tendríamos dos partes y no se negociaría con la cúpula del equipo que provocó el desastre. Eso sería una 'guanajada' clarísima pero lo notable es que los que manejan la frasecita de la solución 'consensuada' o 'pactada' usualmente no pasan de ahí. Parece que no les gusta precisar. ¿Será por aquello de no querer 'pisarle los callos' a nadie?

¿Como se produciría el cambio para que haya dos partes legítimas? Con exactitud no lo sabe nadie. Sólo hay un dato confiable. Los edificios ruinosos apuntalados por vigas carcomidas se derrumban y ahí empieza el proceso, a no ser que se les suministre a los autores de la ruina nuevas vigas y materiales. La cúpula del poder ha intentado hacer esto asociándose con capitalistas sin escrúpulos. En eso consiste el neofascismo que comentábamos. Apoyarlo sin pensar a fondo lo que se hace y se dice es ser 'guanajo.'

Lo cual nos lleva al 'modelo chino'que es simplemente la variante más exitosa del neo-fascismo. Esta por lo común nos la recomiendan 'expertos' no cubanos con muchos 'papelitos' lo cual de entrada me pone en guardia. Es que en mi vida profesional he conocido a infinidad de gentes sin 'papelitos' pero con una inteligencia natural plena de un notable sentido común, así como muchas personas con infinidad de títulos y poco sentido común. Con frecuencia disimulan su poco seso con actitudes condescendientes y nos dicen que preferirían otra cosa para Cuba pero que esta 'solución' es inevitable y hay que 'resignarse. ' Dicho lo cual se toman otro Martini.

Bajo este 'modelo' la comunidad cubano-americana asumiría el rol de los chinos residentes en el exterior que han proveído enormes cantidades de capital de inversión. La cúpula castrista se mantendría y 'eventualmente' (no hay plazos) 'evolucionaría' hacia la democracia. No hay que ser un genio para entender que esta solución darwiniana produciría una nueva versión de una dictadura tropical con el país repartido entre los amigos y socios de los mandones de turno.

Presupone otra guanajada, a saber, una evolución 'benéfica' sin dar una sola razón para explicar por qué una casta acostumbrada a gobernar sin frenos morales ni legales va a adoptar el estado de derecho y a gobernar sin enriquecerse. Además olvida hechos notorios:

i) Una cultura china que es milenaria y sostiene el nacionalismo chino para el cual el Reino Medio es el paradigma a considerar.

ii) 1200 millones de personas que es preciso alimentar y que constituyen el 20% de la población del planeta.

iii) Una historia de poder absoluto y de terribles guerras internas cuando el poder absoluto se resquebraja. El desorden no es inevitable, pero el antecedente influye en las mentes.

iv) 11,000 Klm. de distancia entre Washington y Beijing. No existe una historia de relaciones estrechas entre ambos países.

v) El modelo chino es un libro sin terminar. No sabemos si el nacionalismo Chino va a tornarse virulento o no. Recientemente las declaraciones de un general chino sobre ataques nucleares a Estados Unidos si defendiesen a Taiwán, da bastante que pensar.
Los titulados expertos no cubanos que proponen el modelo chino para Cuba adoptan una actitud condescendiente. Para ellos los cubanos no son capaces de volver a implantar sus tradiciones y cultura occidental. Deben adoptar un modelo extranjero y distante, trabajar por salarios modestos, tener pocos o ningunos derechos laborales, aceptar libertades limitadas y resignarse con una modesta mejoría.

Y para colmo, aceptar todo esto a 90 millas de la economía mayor y la democracia más antigua del planeta. Más que guanajada esta es una idea fatalista y morónica. No somos ni tan mansos ni tan burros. Si Santo Domingo y América Central entran en Cafta, Cuba también. Falta el sentido común de que hablábamos.

¿Y cuales son las otras guanajadas? Cualquier variante que piense que se puede negociar con los capomaffiosi y salir bien parados, cualquier variante que piense que aceptar o intentar variar las reglas mafiosas llamadas constitución socialista es solución. No se modifican modelos fracasados. Se adaptan o restauran modelos exitosos. ¡Y vaya con el sentido común!

Como actuar: Aguantar firmes basados en la justicia y en principios sanos y probados. Apoyar todo aquello que conduzca a un cambio a fondo y no cosmético. Denunciar todo intento de neofascismo. Nada es eterno. Si alguien quiere 'guabinear' que entienda una cosa: el 'guabineo' cubano era producto de otro mundo y otra psicología. Si se dedica a 'guabinear' amigo, se lo van a merendar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Alberto Luzárraga es abogado, banquero internacional y miembro del U.S. Association for Constitutional Law. Reside en Nueva York.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 1997-2005 - LA NUEVA CUBA
All Rights Reserved.
--
http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm


"
Super User For Ever
2005-07-19 16:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Bush — who as Texas governor declared April 17, 2000, Jesus Day —
has awarded religious "armies of compassion" and other faith-based
groups more than $3 billion in public funds since 2003.

latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-et-atheist18jul18,0,2545765,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

COLUMN ONE

A Time of Doubt for Atheists

With the religious making inroads in popular culture and politics,
nonbelievers yearn for higher power in Washington.

By Gina Piccalo

Times Staff Writer


July 18, 2005


It's been years, decades even, since the Almighty was so hot.

The evidence is everywhere. President Bush rallied the faithful to hold
on to the White House. A book by an Orange County preacher extolling
God's purpose in our lives stays a bestseller for more than two years.
And Hollywood, frequently seen as a den of iniquity, is courting a more
spiritual audience in movies and TV.

Faith is the new must-have, evident when a major leaguer points skyward
after his base hit, when a movie star credits the Big Guy for his Oscar,
when the Justice Department backs the display of the Ten Commandments at
two state capitols, and when it defends the Salvation Army's requirement
that employees embrace Jesus Christ.

So where does that leave the fraction of Americans who define themselves
as godless? Although the percentage of Americans who claim no religion
is about 14%, less than a quarter of them identify themselves as
atheists, according to recent polls.

Some are using humor to cope, such as actress Julia Sweeney in her
one-woman play "Letting Go of God," which ran in Los Angeles for several
months this year. "It's really because I take you so seriously," she
tells an imaginary God, "that I can't believe in you."

Others see the future as a time when nonbelievers are outcasts and
religion dictates law, social protocol, even private life.

"The McCarthy era is the last time this climate existed," says Simi
Valley resident Stuart Bechman, co-president of Atheists United, a local
affiliate of Atheist Alliance International.

Although the comparison sounds melodramatic, atheist activists believe
the climate to be so perilous that they're considering something
drastic: unity.

Atheists aren't by nature of one mind. There's a godless organization
for every wrinkle of nonbelief — the prayer-never-hurt-anyone,
live-and-let-live atheists; the prove-the-God-fearing-world-wrong,
keep-America-secular atheists; and the contrarian
I-don't-believe-in-God-but-don't-call-me-an-atheist atheists.

Fear, however, is a great motivator, and politically active atheists
know that they need an advocate in government to be heard.
Unfortunately, as one activist noted, most politicians are as eager to
align with the godless ranks as they are to lobby for pedophiles. Hence
the need for an image makeover.

Keen to cast off stereotypes of immorality, atheists are stressing their
integrity, patriotism and respect for the faithful while staying true to
their age-old commitment to the separation of church and state. Some
even bristle at the terms "atheist" or "nonbeliever." Others have begun
raising funds, lobbying politicians and building online communities.

There have been larger-scale actions as well. The first godless march on
Washington drew thousands in fall 2002, and a few months later the
Godless Americans Political Action Committee was formed. This year, an
Inauguration Summit of 22 like-minded groups was held in Washington to
stimulate cooperation days before Bush's swearing in. And this Veterans
Day, so-called foxhole atheists (servicemen and women who are
nonbelievers) will be honored in the capital.

If all goes as planned, says Ellen Johnson, longtime president of
American Atheists, at least one presidential candidate will be courting
their vote in 2008.

"We can't complain about what the religious do," she says. "All we have
to do is copy their strategy."

*

Best or Worst of Times?

Some among the nonbelievers say life is pretty good compared with
decades past when violence was a common threat and professed
nonbelievers were driven from their jobs and homes.

"I actually think it is getting better for atheists in the U.S., despite
the religiosity of the current administration," Las Vegas atheist Clark
Adams writes in an e-mail. "Many celebrities are on record as
nonbelievers, and it's not too uncommon to see an atheist positively
portrayed on TV or in movies."

Others, though, label this argument "denial." They're quick to reference
the many atheists who so fear harassment that they join atheist groups
anonymously and others who are cast out of their families, refused
positions involving children or relieved of jobs because of their
nonbelief.

It's this group that pushes the separation of church and state, a debate
energized during the 1960s by legendary atheist activist Madalyn Murray
O'Hair, who proclaimed herself "the most hated woman in America."

They reject the argument often cited by Christian activists that the
nation's government was founded by Christians. They argue that although
some of the authors of the Constitution may have been religious men,
they consistently maintained a clear boundary between their faith and
their government. They note that until the communist scare of the 1950s,
"In God we trust" wasn't the national motto, nor did it appear on paper
currency, and "under God" was absent from the Pledge of Allegiance.

They point out that Bush — who as Texas governor declared April 17,
2000, Jesus Day — has awarded religious "armies of compassion" and
other faith-based groups more than $3 billion in public funds since
2003. And they feel the steel in remarks by former California Supreme
Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, now on the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, who told Roman Catholic legal
professionals in April that people of faith were embroiled in a "war"
with secular humanists.

"I have been threatened with damnation so many times it's stupid," says
Dave Silverman of Piscataway, N.J., communications director of American
Atheists and founder of NoGodBlog.com. "The amount of intolerance in
this country is staggering."

Atheists often keep quiet about their worldview. Some say that to
volunteer their atheism offends believers.

"We have a social idea that it's rude," says Bobbie Kirkhart, Los
Angeles-based president of Atheist Alliance International.

Others say it instantly taints society's perception of them.

Silverman says his 8-year-old daughter, who he says is also an atheist,
has been taunted as a Satanist by some of her Christian playmates.
Atheist United's Bechman says he usually receives hate mail or prank
calls after he takes a stance on church-state issues. Los Angeles acting
teacher and Thomas Jefferson impersonator Dale Reynolds says he's
sometimes consoled by believers saddened by his lack of faith.

"It is the kind of thing that if you bring it up, there are
ramifications," Reynolds says.

Still, there are those outspoken nonbelievers doing their best to
influence the masses.

American Atheists' Johnson, whose national organization claims 2,200
members, is a regular on news talk shows. She is also executive director
of the Godless Americans PAC, and meets with politicians to build
awareness and support for church-state separation legislation. She
helped organize the 2002 march on Washington and is organizing
November's Atheists in Foxholes parade and ceremony. Yet, she
acknowledges, atheism is a hard sell.

"The candidate is in an awkward position," she says. "They're wary to be
endorsed by an atheist…. We have to be able to deliver the votes to
get them into office. I can't do that yet."

Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert of Sacramento hope to change that with a
new name and an online community. They founded the Brights' Net
(the-brights.net) in 2003 to create a place for people who share "a
worldview free from supernatural and mystical elements." They chose the
term "brights" because, unlike "godless," "atheist" and "nonbeliever,"
it did not define them in religious terms. By creating this label,
Futrell and Geisert hope to "level the playing field" and recast members
of their community as independent thinkers who celebrate knowledge
without identifying themselves as vociferous anti-theists.

They want to build a large, influential community, similar to
MoveOn.org, to sway public opinion. So far, they say, there are Brights
in more than 115 countries.

"There's this tremendous feeling of being a second-class citizen when
you know you're patriotic and working for all kinds of good things for
the country, and yet you're ranked with the pedophiles," Futrell says.
"You have to have political influence in order to get cultural change of
any kind."


*


Celebrity Heroes

If the politicians don't come, it doesn't hurt a cause to have a
celebrity.

In 1999, then-Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura became a hero for the
movement when he refused to endorse the National Day of Prayer and told
Playboy magazine that organized religion was "a sham and a crutch for
weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."

Actress-writer Sweeney emerged this year as a sort of amiable advocate
for nonbelief. "Letting Go of God," which played at a small Hollywood
theater, proved so popular that Sweeney is recording a CD of the
performance, writing a book based on it and has plans to release it as a
film.

Her show aims to entertain and disarm audiences as it traces Sweeney's
path away from Catholicism.

In one scene, a Bible study class causes her to find the book outrageous
and disturbing. She asks herself, "Is this one big practical joke?" Her
skepticism isn't limited to one religion; after a journey to the Far
East and a run-in with Deepak Chopra, she chooses science over faith
because "for the first time, knowing too much didn't ruin it."

Breaking the news to her devout Catholic parents, however, didn't go
well. Her father forbade her from attending his funeral. Her mother
complained that "at least being gay is socially acceptable…. Why can't
you just say you're still searching?"

Sweeney didn't respond to interview requests, but on her blog at
juliasweeney.com, she described the fallout of the recent publicity.


The mail was so voluminous and, she writes, "so outraged and so filled
with hate" that on June 13 she decided to stop blogging for a while and
has considered moving.


"I think I tried really hard not to be hateful in my monologue," she
writes. "I tried to make a case for faith and show the struggle with
compassion to all sides…. I think I have a lot in common with
Christians … because I think it's majorly important if someone is
religious or not. Only I think it should be on the 'not' side."


Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
PM
2005-07-20 04:35:57 UTC
Permalink
PARTIDO SOCIALISTA DE REP. DOMINICANA.


Cuba, un Pueblo esclavizado


Un libro que todos los esbirros extranjeros del tirano debieran leer.

Donde aparece este libro?

En una publicacion de "ultra-derecha" del
exilio?

Bueno, quizas para los esbirros extranjeros del tirano,
aquellos que abogan por un socialismo democratico, son de
"ultra-derecha."

Lean su pagina cibernetica y aprenderan que

LA PATRIA ES DE TODOS.


http://psrdc.org/index.html PARTIDO SOCIALISTA DE REP. DOMINICANA

Cuba, un Pueblo esclavizado
Héctor Manuel Ramírez Rodríguez

Muñoz Moya Editores Extremeños
232 págs. 17 x 24 cm.
ISBN. 84-8010-151-2

¿Sabías que para comprar un par de zapatos de los baratos un
ingeniero necesita en Cuba el sueldo de un mes y un obrero el de tres
y pico?
¿Que un televisor le cuesta al ingeniero 15 meses de sueldo?
¿Que sólo tienes derecho y puedes beber leche hasta los 7 años?
¿Que la paga mensual de un obrero solo da para 2,5 kg. de carne de
cerdo?

Cuba un pueblo esclavizado narra la angustiosa vida cotidiana de los
cubanos tal y como es. Este libro es un fiel testimonio de la
realidad, escrito en el momento y lugar de los hechos, tal y como la
contaría cualquier otro cubano aunque sea seguidor de Fidel. Fue
compuesto día a día clandestinamente en Cuba por el autor con riesgo
de su vida y circula en la isla en copias de todas clases, al mejor
estilo del samizdat soviético.

En Cuba un pueblo esclavizado el lector sabrá como está en Cuba la
vivienda, la salud, la educación, la electricidad,
los transportes, el parque automóvil, la cultura y el deporte, la
telefonía, ordenadores, en resumen, la situación material del pueblo
cubano.

El trabajo sin protección, los trabajos forzosos disfrazados de
"voluntarios", el caos de la vida social, el robo generalizado, la
corrupción, el alto índice de violencia, las drogas, la
prostitución, desfilan por las páginas de Cuba un pueblo
esclavizado, en descripciones concretas de la vida diaria, como
también desfilan la vida política del país, las organizacciones
fidelistas, su funcionamiento y sus cuadros.

El autor Héctor Manuel Ramírez Rodríguez no es miembro de ningún
partido político oposicionista, ni un encumbrado intelectual, ni
está relacionado con ninguna organización antifidelista, ni de
derechos humanos, ni con ningún disidente: es una representación
genuina del pueblo cubano que sufre y padece la cruel tiranía de
Castro y sus secuaces, un cubano de a pie como casi todos los demás
que cuenta lo que ve y lo que siente. Tanto más veraz es y mayor valor
tiene por lo tanto su testimonio.

En Cuba un pueblo esclavizado se cuentan fundamentalmente hechos. La
interpreetación es libre y el autor tiene la suya, pero los hechos,
hechos son. Aquí se relata la verdadera vida de la cárcel más
grande y hermosa del mundo según unos,
y del bastión del socialismo según otros.

Usted puede ahora sacar sus propias conclusiones.

Indice

PRÓLOGO
Explicaciones que no sirven
Socialismo y comunismo
En Cuba no hay ni nunca ha habido revolución socialista, menos
aún comunista
La red de amigos de Cuba
Sobre este libro
El autor

CUBA, UN PUEBLO ESCLAVIZADO
CON TODO MI CORAZÓN
ASÍ NACIÓ UN PATRIOTA
EL ÚLTIMO EMPERADOR: FIDEL CASTRO RUZ
Su vida privada
Ligero despertar
Castigo para el Diablo
Breve comparación
HABÍA UNA VEZ UNA ISLA
PRIMERA REPÚBLICA
CAMINO AL FIDELISMO
Girón
FIDEL Y LOS RUSOS
PERÍODO ESPECIAL
Medidas
Perfeccionamiento empresarial
RETROCESO EN EL DESARROLLO
Ley de la tierra
La caña de azúcar
Ganadería
Computación
MISERIA AL DESCUBIERTO
Plusvalía de Fidel
Trabajo voluntario
Trabajar sin protección
Los créditos
Libreta de productos
Situación del hogar cubano
Valor del peso cubano
Negocios ilícitos
Policía Nacional Revolucionaria (PNR)
Criar un cerdo
DESORDEN SOCIAL
Donaciones a Cuba
La aduana
Robo mútuo
El transporte de pasajeros
Caos en el tránsito
Telefonía
Burocracia
Electricidad
Robos
Muertes
Drogas
Prostitución
LEY DE PROPIEDAD
Vivienda
Autos
Televisores
Reproductores de vídeo
Camiones
PRESOS EN LA PATRIA
Ley de emigración
Ley de ajuste cubano
Familia en el extranjero
Vivir en la capital
LA SALUD
Médico de familia
Trasplante de órganos
EDUCACIÓN
Situación de los educadores
Maestros emergentes
Los "valientes"
Municipalización de la enseñanza
Escuelas en el campo
Universidad
DEPORTE
Primera olimpiada nacional cubana
CULTURA
Batalla de ideas
Marchas populares
Tribunas abiertas
Mesa redonda
El más grande show
Escuelas de trabajadores sociales
Eventos internacionales
Cursos de política
Los medios de difusión
Candidatos a emigrantes
Problema ideológico
FIDEL Y DIOS
ORGANIZACIONES FIDELISTAS
El Partido Comunista de Cuba (PCC)
Las Milicias de Tropas Territoriales (MTT)
Los Comité de Defensa de la Revolución (CDR)
Central de Trabajadores de Cuba (CTC)
La Unión de Jóvenes Comunistas (UJC)
La Federación de Mujeres Cubanas (FMC)
Asociación de Combatientes Revolucionarios de Cuba (ACRC)
Organizaciones estudiantiles
Todas son una
GUERRA ENTRE FIDEL Y USA
Origen
El juicio Cuba Demanda
El rol de USA
POLÍTICA INTERNACIONAL DE FIDEL
Angola
Nicaragua
México
Venezuela
Espionaje fidelista
CUADROS DE FIDEL
Hubert Matos
Camilo Cienfuegos1
Ernesto Guevara de la Serna
Raúl Castro Ruz
Roberto Robaina
Jazán Pérez
MUERTOS POR FIDEL
DICTADURA ENMASCARADA
VIOLACIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS
REFLEXIÓN
Posible solución
--
http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm
PM
2005-07-19 16:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Quince de menos.... 15 hijos de putas de menos...

Ejército colombiano mata a 15 guerrilleros del ELN

Unos 15 rebeldes del ELN murieron en enfrentamientos con el Ejército en el municipio colombiano de Jamundí, departamento de Valle del Cauca, informó hoy un portavoz oficial.

El comandante de la Tercera Brigada del Ejército, general Hernando Pérez, afirmó que en desarrollo de la operación 'Gladiador' que realizan las autoridades colombianas contra los rebeldes guevaristas, murieron 15 hombres de la columna 'Guerreros de los Farallones', pertenecientes al Frente 'José María Becerra', reseñó DPA.

"En las horas de la madrugada en el caserío de Villa Colombia, en el municipio de Jamundí, los combates dejan hasta el momento la muerte de 15 terroristas del ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional, guevarista)", dijo el oficial.

Pérez afirmó que en el operativo se incautaron de un importante material de guerra y comunicaciones al tiempo que aclaró que no hubo bajas militares.
"Figuran 15 minas antipersonal, 11 armas largas, 2 lanzagranadas, 35 uniformes camuflados, una planta solar, 15 equipos de campaña, un radio base de comunicaciones y granadas de mano", añadió.
"Estos bandidos pretendían hacer acciones contra la población civil, la información nos llegó y ya habíamos hecho otras operaciones en el sector hasta que finalmente esta mañana pudimos dar con el grupo que estaba preparando operaciones contra la población", precisó.

El Frente 'José María Becerra' es sindicado de ser el responsable de los secuestros masivos de la Iglesia La María en 1999 y el del 'kilómetro 18' en 2000, lugares donde fueron retenidas unas 150 personas, además de atribuirles responsabilidad por extorsiones y asesinatos.

Cadena Global/EFE
--
http://therealcuba.com/Dennis.htm

http://therealcuba.com/Page24.htm


"pariguayo" <***@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: ***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
ustedes se creen sus propias mentiras...
Super User For Ever
2005-07-19 19:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by PM
Quince de menos.... 15 hijos de putas de menos...
Ejército colombiano mata a 15 guerrilleros del ELN
GET OUT THE VOTE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Did Washington try to manipulate Iraq’s election?
Issue of 2005-07-25
Posted 2005-07-18



The January 30th election in Iraq was publicly perceived as a political
triumph for George W. Bush and a vindication of his decision to overturn
the regime of Saddam Hussein. More than eight million Iraqis defied the
threats of the insurgency and came out to vote for provincial councils
and a national assembly. Many of them spent hours waiting patiently in
line, knowing that they were risking their lives. Images of smiling
Iraqis waving purple index fingers, signifying that they had voted, were
transmitted around the world. Even some of the President’s harshest
critics acknowledged that he might have been right: democracy, as he
defined it, could take hold in the Middle East. The fact that very few
Sunnis, who were dominant under Saddam Hussein, chose to vote was seen
within the Administration as a temporary setback. The sense of victory
faded, however, amid a continued political stalemate, increased
violence, and a hardening of religious divides. After three months of
bitter sectarian infighting, a government was finally formed. It is
struggling to fulfill its primary task: to draft a new constitution by
mid-August.

Whether the election could sustain its promise had been in question from
the beginning. The Administration was confronted with a basic dilemma:
The likely winner of a direct and open election would be a Shiite
religious party. The Shiites were bitter opponents of Saddam’s regime,
and suffered under it, but many Shiite religious and political leaders
are allied, to varying degrees, with the mullahs of Iran. As the
election neared, the Administration repeatedly sought ways—including
covert action—to manipulate the outcome and reduce the religious
Shiite influence. Not everything went as planned.

The initial election plan, endorsed in late 2003 by Paul Bremer, the
head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, involved a caucus system in
which the C.P.A. would be able to exert enormous influence over the
selection of a transitional government. Each major ethnic group—the
Shiites, who represent sixty per cent of the population; the Sunnis,
with twenty per cent; and the Kurds, with around fifteen per
cent—would have a fixed number of seats in a national assembly. The
U.S. hoped to hold the election before the transfer of sovereignty,
which was scheduled for June 30, 2004, but the lack of security made the
deadline unrealistic. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual
leader of one of the Shiite parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq, or sciri, agreed to accept a delay, as the U.S.
wanted, in return for the White House’s commitment to hold a direct
one-man, one-vote election. President Bush agreed. It was a change in
policy that many in the Administration feared would insure a Shiite
majority in the new assembly.

The obstacles to a free election, in a country with shallow democratic
roots, suffering from years of dictatorship, a foreign invasion, and an
insurgency, were immense. As Larry Diamond, a senior adviser to the
C.P.A., warned Bremer in a March, 2004, memorandum, “Political parties
that have never contested democratic elections before tend to fall back
upon their worst instincts and experience. They buy votes, and
frequently they buy electoral officials. . . . They use armed thugs to
intimidate opposition, and even to assassinate opponents. . . . They may
use force and fraud to steal or stuff the ballot boxes.”

In a second memo, Diamond noted that sciri and Dawa, the other major
Shiite party, as well as more militant Shiite paramilitary groups, were
believed to be receiving funding and training from Iran. “Most of the
other political parties complain of the difficulty of finding the
financial resources to organize, mobilize support, and prepare to
contest elections,” Diamond wrote. “Several have appealed directly,
if discreetly, for some kind of international assistance, including from
the United States.”

He urged Bremer to set up a transparent fund that would distribute
operating cash equitably to all political parties. “Alternative
mechanisms to level the playing field are unlikely to work,” Diamond
wrote. Specifically, he argued against giving money covertly to favored
parties, such as the slate controlled by Iyad Allawi, the acting Prime
Minister, a secular Shiite, who was a staunch American ally. During the
Cold War, he noted in his second memo, the United States “channeled
covert resources to political parties that appeared more moderate and
democratic, and more pro-Western. That is no longer possible or
sensible.”

Diamond received no official response from Bremer or from Condoleezza
Rice, the national-security adviser, to whom he forwarded the
memorandums. In his recent book, “Squandered Victory,” Diamond, who
had previously worked with Rice, argued that the Bush Administration
bungled the occupation. In April, he returned to the Hoover Institution
at Stanford University, where he is a senior fellow.

In his meetings with political leaders in Iraq before the election,
Diamond told me, “I said, matter-of-factly, that of course the United
States could not operate the way we did in the Cold War. We had to be
fair and transparent in everything we did, if we were really interested
in promoting democracy—I took it as simply an article of faith.”



By the late spring of 2004, according to officials in the State
Department, Congress, and the United Nations, the Bush Administration
was engaged in a debate over the very issue that Diamond had warned
about: providing direct support to Allawi and other parties seen as
close to the United States and hostile to Iran. Allawi, who had spent
decades in exile and worked both for Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat and
for Western intelligence agencies, lacked strong popular appeal. The
goal, according to several former intelligence and military officials,
was not to achieve outright victory for Allawi—such an outcome would
not be possible or credible, given the strength of the pro-Iranian
Shiite religious parties—but to minimize the religious Shiites’
political influence. The Administration hoped to keep Allawi as a major
figure in a coalition government, and to do so his party needed a
respectable share of the vote.

The main advocate for channelling aid to preferred parties was Thomas
Warrick, a senior adviser on Iraq for the State Department’s Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, who was backed, in this debate, by his superiors
and by the National Security Council. Warrick’s plan involved using
forty million dollars that had been appropriated for the election to
covertly provide cell phones, vehicles, radios, security, administrative
help, and cash to the parties the Administration favored. The State
Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor resisted
this plan, and turned to three American non-governmental organizations
that have for decades helped to organize and monitor elections around
the world: the National Democratic Institute (N.D.I.), the International
Republican Institute (I.R.I.), and the National Endowment for Democracy
(N.E.D.).

“It was a huge debate,” a participant in the discussions told me.
“Warrick said he had gotten the Administration principals”—senior
officials of the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National
Security Council—“to agree.” The N.G.O.s “were fighting a
rearguard action to get this election straight,” and emphasized at
meetings that “the idea of picking favorites never works,” he said.

“There was a worry that a lot of money was being put aside in
walking-around money for Allawi,” the participant in the discussions
told me. “The N.G.O.s said, ‘We don’t do this—and, in any case,
it’s crazy, because if anyone gets word of this manipulation it’ll
ruin what could be a good thing. It’s the wrong way to do it.’ The
N.G.O.s tried to drive a stake into the heart of it.”

Over the summer and early fall of 2004, the N.G.O.s arranged meetings
with several senior officials, including John Negroponte, who was then
the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. A pattern developed, the participant in the
discussions said. The N.G.O.s, he recounted, would say, “We’re not
going to work with this if there’s people out there passing around
money. We will not be part of any covert operation, and we need your
word that the election will be open and transparent,” and the
officials would reassure them. Within weeks of a meeting, the N.G.O.s
would “still hear word of a Track II—a covert group,” the
participant said. “The money was to be given to Allawi and others.”

A European election expert who was involved in planning the Iraqi
election recalled that Warrick “was always negative about the Shiites
and their ties to the Iranians. He thought he could manipulate the
election by playing with the political process, and he pushed the
N.G.O.s on it really hard.”

Les Campbell, the regional director of the N.D.I. for the Middle East
and North Africa, told me that he immediately realized “how deep the
American desire to do something to help Allawi was.” Campbell
acknowledged that he and his colleagues had kept up a running dispute
with Warrick. At first, it seemed that the N.G.O.s had won, and the
forty million dollars was given in grants for the N.G.O.s to help plan
and monitor the election. But the pressure from the Administration to
provide direct support for specific parties was unrelenting, and
Warrick’s idea didn’t go away. As the campaign progressed, Campbell
said, “It became clear that Allawi and his coalition had huge
resources, although nothing was flowing through normal channels. He had
very professional and very sophisticated media help and saturation
television coverage.”

The focus on Allawi, Campbell said, blinded the White House to some of
the realities on the ground. “The Administration was backing the wrong
parties in Iraq,” he said. “We told them, ‘The parties you like
are going to get creamed.’ They didn’t believe it.”

“What Tom Warrick was trying to do was not stupid,” a senior United
Nations official who was directly involved in planning for the Iraqi
election told me. “He was desperate, because Bremer and the White
House had empowered the Iranians. Warrick was trying to see what could
be salvaged.” He added that the answer, as far as the United States
was concerned, was Allawi, who, despite his dubious past, was “the
nearest thing to an Iraqi with whom the White House could salvage the
nation.”

A State Department official confirmed that there was an effort to give
direct funding to certain candidates. “The goal was to level the
playing field, and Allawi was not the sole playing field,” he said.
Warrick was not operating on his own, the State Department official
said. “This issue went to high levels, and was approved”—within
the State Department and by others in the Bush Administration, in the
late spring of 2004. “A lot of people were involved in it and shared
the idea,” including, he claimed, some of the N.G.O. operatives
working in Iraq. He added, “The story that should be written is why
the neoconservatives and others in the U.S. government who were hostile
to Iran had this blind spot when it came to the election”—that is,
why they endorsed a process that, as Warrick and his colleagues saw it,
would likely bring pro-Iranian parties to power.

In any case, the State Department official said, Richard Armitage, the
Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, put an end to Warrick’s
efforts in the early fall. Armitage confirmed this, and told me that he
believed that he was carrying out the President’s wishes. “There was
a question at a principals’ meeting about whether we should try and
change the vote,” Armitage recalled, and the President said several
times, “We will not put our thumb on the scale.”



Nonetheless, in the same time period, former military and intelligence
officials told me, the White House promulgated a highly classified
Presidential “finding” authorizing the C.I.A. to provide money and
other support covertly to political candidates in certain countries who,
in the Administration’s view, were seeking to spread democracy. “The
finding was general,” a recently retired high-level C.I.A. official
told me. “But there’s no doubt that Baghdad was a stop on the way.
The process is under the control of the C.I.A. and the Defense
Department.”

It is not known why the President would reject one program to intervene
in the election and initiate another, more covert one. According to
Pentagon consultants and former senior intelligence officials, there was
a growing realization within the White House that most Sunnis would
indeed boycott the election. Getting accurate polls in a country under
occupation, with an active insurgency, was, of course, difficult. But
the available polls showed Allawi’s ratings at around three or four
per cent through most of 2004, and also showed the pro-Iranian Shiite
slate at more than fifty per cent. The Administration had optimistically
assumed that the political and security situation would improve, despite
warnings from the intelligence community that it would not.

A former senior intelligence official told me, “The election clock was
running down, and people were panicking. The polls showed that the
Shiites were going to run off with the store. The Administration had to
do something. How?”

By then, the men in charge of the C.I.A. were “dying to help out, and
make sure the election went the right way,” the recently retired
C.I.A. official recalled. It was known inside the intelligence
community, he added, that the Iranians and others were providing
under-the-table assistance to various factions. The concern, he said,
was that “the bad guys would win.”

Under federal law, a finding must be submitted to the House and Senate
intelligence committees or, in exceptional cases, only to the
intelligence committee chairs and ranking members and the Republican and
Democratic leaders of Congress. At least one Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, the
House Minority Leader, strongly protested any interference in the Iraqi
election. (An account of the dispute was published in Time last
October.) The recently retired C.I.A. official recounted angrily, “She
threatened to blow the whole thing up in the press by going public. The
White House folded to Pelosi.” And, for a time, “she brought it to a
halt.” Pelosi would not confirm or deny this account, except, in an
e-mail from her spokesman, to “vigorously” deny that she had
threatened to go public. She added, “I have never threatened to make
any classified information public. That’s against the law.” (The
White House did not respond to requests for comment.)

The essence of Pelosi’s objection, the recently retired high-level
C.I.A. official said, was: “Did we have eleven hundred Americans
die”—the number of U.S. combat deaths as of last September—“so
they could have a rigged election?”

Sometime after last November’s Presidential election, I was told by
past and present intelligence and military officials, the Bush
Administration decided to override Pelosi’s objections and covertly
intervene in the Iraqi election. A former national-security official
told me that he had learned of the effort from “people who worked the
beat”—those involved in the operation. It was necessary, he added,
“because they couldn’t afford to have a disaster.”

A Pentagon consultant who deals with the senior military leadership
acknowledged that the American authorities in Iraq “did an
operation” to try to influence the results of the election. “They
had to,” he said. “They were trying to make a case that Allawi was
popular, and he had no juice.” A government consultant with close ties
to the Pentagon’s civilian leaders said, “We didn’t want to take a
chance.”

I was informed by several former military and intelligence officials
that the activities were kept, in part, “off the books”—they were
conducted by retired C.I.A. officers and other non-government personnel,
and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress. Some
in the White House and at the Pentagon believed that keeping an
operation off the books eliminated the need to give a formal briefing to
the relevant members of Congress and congressional intelligence
committees, whose jurisdiction is limited, in their view, to officially
sanctioned C.I.A. operations. (The Pentagon is known to be running
clandestine operations today in North Africa and Central Asia with
little or no official C.I.A. involvement.)

“The Administration wouldn’t take the chance of doing it within the
system,” the former senior intelligence official said. “The genius
of the operation lies in the behind-the-scenes operatives—we have
hired hands that deal with this.” He added that a number of military
and intelligence officials were angered by the covert plans. Their
feeling was “How could we take such a risk, when we didn’t have to?
The Shiites were going to win the election anyway.”

In my reporting for this story, one theme that emerged was the Bush
Administration’s increasing tendency to turn to off-the-books covert
actions to accomplish its goals. This allowed the Administration to
avoid the kind of stumbling blocks it encountered in the debate about
how to handle the elections: bureaucratic infighting, congressional
second-guessing, complaints from outsiders.

The methods and the scope of the covert effort have been hard to
discern. The current and former military and intelligence officials who
spoke to me about the election operation were unable, or unwilling, to
give precise details about who did what and where on Election Day. These
sources said they heard reports of voter intimidation, ballot stuffing,
bribery, and the falsification of returns, but the circumstances, and
the extent of direct American involvement, could not be confirmed.

And, as Larry Diamond noted, there was also a strong possibility that
Iraqis themselves would attempt voter fraud, with or without assistance
from the U.S. According to the government consultant with close ties to
Pentagon civilians, the C.P.A. accepted the reality of voter fraud on
the part of the Kurds, whom the Americans viewed as “the only blocking
group against the Shiites’ running wild.” He said, “People thought
that by looking the other way as Kurds voted—man and wife, two
times—you’d provide the Kurds with an incentive to remain in a
federation.” (Kurdistan had gained partial autonomy before Saddam
Hussein’s overthrow, and many Kurds were agitating for secession.)

The high-ranking United Nations official told me, “The American
Embassy’s aim was to make sure that Allawi remained as Prime Minister,
and they tried to do it through manipulation of the system.” But he
also said that there was cheating on the other side. “The Shiites
rigged the election in the south as much as ballots were rigged for
Allawi.” He added, “You are right that it was rigged, but you did
not rig it well enough.”

Several weeks before the election, Margaret McDonagh, a political
operative close to Tony Blair, showed up at Allawi’s side in Baghdad,
and immediately got involved in a last-minute barrage of campaigning,
advertising, and spending. (McDonagh did not respond to a request for
comment.) These efforts, and Allawi’s own attempt to present himself
as a forceful Prime Minister, apparently helped to raise his standing.
In one American poll, he came close to nine per cent in the days before
the election.

A second senior U.N. official, who was also involved in the Iraqi
election, told me that for months before the election he warned the
C.P.A. and his superiors that the voting as it was planned would not
meet U.N. standards. The lack of security meant that candidates were
unwilling to campaign openly, as in a normal election, for fear of
becoming targets. Candidates ran as members of party lists, but the
parties kept most of the names on their lists secret during the
campaign, so voters did not even know who was running. The electorate
was left, in most cases, with little basis for a decision beyond ethnic
and religious ties. The United Nations official said, “The election
was not an election but a referendum on ethnic and religious identity.
For the Kurds, voting was about selfdetermination. For the Shiites,
voting was about a fatwa issued by Sistani.”

Some of the Americans working with the Administration on Iraq assumed
that, once the Presidential election was over, Bush would delay the vote
until security improved and more Sunnis could be brought in. In a Times
Op-Ed piece published in late September, Noah Feldman, a consultant on
constitutional issues for the C.P.A., warned that “without Sunni
participation, the election results would be worse than useless. . . .
Nobody expects perfection, but trying to rush ahead to democracy will
increase the chances that we will never get there at all.”

Feldman, who teaches at New York University Law School, told me that the
Administration rejected this advice. “The neocons were true
believers,” Feldman said, referring to the senior civilian leadership
in the Pentagon, “and they focussed on building an Iraq with no
ethnicity and religion. They didn’t realize that the President
believes what you tell him”—that the election would diminish
sectarian strife.



On Election Day, the weaknesses of the system and the potential for
abuse were evident. The lack of security, which has severely restricted
the ability of reporters to travel in Iraq, caused many international
organizations that normally monitor elections to stay away. The European
Union declined to send a delegation. An election expert who was in Iraq
told me that he knew of only two international observers in the country
on Election Day, one of whom was in the Green Zone. Most observers were
Iraqis who had recently been trained by the American N.G.O.s or were
affiliated with political parties.

The government consultant said that while the N.G.O.s had deployed most
of the poll watchers to Shiite and Kurdish areas, fraud on Allawi’s
behalf took place in the Sunni areas. He added, “You never have enough
observers in any election, and so how do you maximize their
effectiveness? You never announce in advance where they’re going. But
in Iraq the people on the inside tipped them off,” referring to the
Iraqis and American operatives who were involved in manipulating the
election. “They knew where the observers would and would not go.”

One of the most scrutinized areas was in and around the ethnically mixed
city of Mosul, in Nineveh Province. The election expert depicted the
situation there as chaotic. Ballot boxes from four hundred and fifty
polling stations flooded into a regional center that had been set up at
the last minute because of security concerns. Many boxes had apparently
been filled with bundles of ballots, “nicely arranged,” before they
were sealed, he said. Some ballots were simply dropped off in cardboard
boxes. The process was marked by questionable counting and sloppy
recordkeeping. It was, he said, “woefully inadequate.”

An after-action assessment from Mosul forwarded to the Independent
Electoral Commission of Iraq (I.E.C.I.) concluded that approximately
forty per cent of the ballots in the Mosul area could not “be
allocated to a specific polling station”—in other words, it was not
possible to determine which station they had come from. The report
estimated that at least ten per cent of the hundreds of ballot boxes had
been stuffed.

Two American election officials who were in Iraq acknowledged that there
were problems but said that, at least in areas where observers were
present, they were able to prevent many disputed ballots from being
counted. An American who served as an adviser to the I.E.C.I. told me
that he knew of three hundred questionable boxes from Mosul that “were
excluded—never counted.” There was cause for concern, both agreed,
in the areas where, for security reasons, many observers could not be
sent, especially in the Sunni regions.

Farid Ayar, a spokesman for the I.E.C.I., said, “I can assure you that
neither the U.S. nor any other foreign nation intervened in our pure and
honest election. I know of no such allegations.” When asked about
fraud by domestic parties, he added, “You can’t check that. Maybe in
a village somewhere somebody gave someone fifty dollars to vote for a
candidate. It happens in most of the Third World countries. You don’t
know—maybe it happens, maybe not.”

In retrospect, Les Campbell, of the N.D.I., told me, “we’re really
proud of what we did. In the end, the election was administered as well
as it could have been, and the Iraqi citizens became convinced that
there was a reason to vote. Yes, there were problems, but engaging in
the democratic process is important.” He added, “We did our best,
and we don’t know if anything that happened would have had a
substantial effect on the election.”



The final election totals were announced twelve days after the voting,
and they contained some surprises and anomalies. The pro-Iranian Shiites
did worse than anticipated, with forty-eight per cent of the
vote—giving them far less than the two-thirds of the assembly seats
needed to form a government and thus control the writing of the
constitution. Allawi’s slate did well, at least compared with his
standing in earlier polls, gathering nearly fourteen per cent. The Kurds
won twenty-six per cent of the vote. They had undoubtedly benefitted
from a large, coördinated, and legitimate turnout. But the Turkmen and
the Arabs, two minority groups in Kurdistan, held public protests
accusing the I.E.C.I. of mismanagement and fraud, and demanded new
elections.

Ghassan Atiyyah, a secular Shiite who worked on the State Department’s
postwar planning project before the invasion of Iraq and is now the
director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, in
Baghdad, told me that he and many of his associates believed that
Allawi’s surprisingly strong showing “was due to American
manipulation of the election. There’s no doubt about it. The
Americans, directly or indirectly, spent millions on Allawi.” Atiyyah
went on, “As an Iraqi who supported the use of force to overthrow
Saddam, I can tell you that as long as real democratic practices are not
adhered to, you Americans cannot talk about democracy.”

On Election Day, voters had been handed ballots for the national
assembly and for the provincial councils. Allawi’s slate ran
provincial lists in only eight provinces and received a total of 177,678
provincial votes in those areas. In the same provinces, Allawi’s
national list received a total of 452,629 votes—almost three times the
number of provincial votes.

Most election experts I spoke to found the deviation surprising and
difficult to explain. The State Department official, however, said that
Allawi “had no organized campaign in the provinces, and the people he
was running with locally had no appeal.” The official then raised
questions about possible irregularities in the Shiite vote. “Opinion
polls consistently showed that Dawa candidates were beating the sciri
party by two to one,” he said. “In the actual election, in some
provinces sciri beat Dawa two to one.” Allawi’s results, he said,
“may not be a unique skewing—sciri may have done it, too.”

A few weeks after the election, a European intelligence official, having
acknowledged that he had heard allegations of voter fraud, told me,
“The question will be: How will the elections be perceived in Iraq? As
legitimate and fair? Or not?”

The election results made it necessary for the parties to form a
coalition, as the Bush Administration had anticipated, and the U.S.
initially lobbied for a major political role for Allawi. But Allawi, who
had continued to serve as the acting Prime Minister, got no post when
the new Iraq government was formed, in late April—demonstrating anew
the limits of America’s ability to control events in Iraq. Ibrahim
al-Jafaari, of the Dawa party, became Prime Minister, and a Kurd, Jalal
Talabani, became President.

In recent weeks, the Shiite and Kurdish leadership has agreed to put
more Sunnis on the commission that is writing the constitution. The
Shiite community is likely to limit their influence. Still, some
observers, such as Noah Feldman, believe that the Sunnis on the
commission “are going to try very hard to bring on board the serious
players who can speak for the Sunni side of the
insurgency”—beginning a process that could lead to stability in
Iraq.

If this takes place, the election may still be judged a success. But
what the Administration accomplished in its interventions is
questionable. The efforts to reduce the Shiites’ plurality, if they
had any effect, only delayed their formation of a government,
contributing to the instability and disillusionment that have benefitted
the insurgency in recent months. The election outcome also strengthened
the political hand of the Kurds, who have demanded more autonomy and
refused to disband their powerful militias.

In early July, Jafaari stunned Washington by signing an extensive pact
with Iran—a nation that President Bush named as part of an axis of
evil. The deal reportedly included a billion dollars in military and
reconstruction aid. At a joint press conference in Tehran, Ali
Shamkhani, the Iranian Defense Minister, said, “It’s a new chapter
in our relations with Iraq.”
Continúe leyendo en narkive:
Loading...