Successful Pro-Peace/Anti-War Events ... Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » 2005 Attic » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through April 5, 2005 » Successful Pro-Peace/Anti-War Events in Maplewood « Previous Next »

  Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page          

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk

Post Number: 141
Registered: 8-2001


Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 1:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Both South Mountain Peace Action and South Orange-Maplewood Committee to Stop the War staged successful events this weekend to encourage enlightenment, compassion, and activism. Great work done by both camps!

Public detractors were few and far-between and encouraged to speak their minds and engage in civil debate as far as I can tell.

Some of the clips:

Star-Ledger

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1111297991265190.xml?starledger ?ntop

Maplewood "Be About Peace" referenced in paragraph 12

News 12 New Jersey
https://www.news12.com/NJ/topstories/article?id=132073#

Click PLAY THE VIDEO. SOMA Stop the War's "Patriot Acts" was covered and the founder interviewed.

Note that SOMA Stop the War has a public forum/talk on Monday night by a representative from Human Rights Watch at the Maplewood Library. More details here: www.somastopthewar.org
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish

Post Number: 25
Registered: 6-2004
Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's what I want to know....

Had your boy John "I voted the the 87 million before I voted against it" Kerry won the election, would you be protesting?

I believe the answer is NO. Deep down I believe you are not protesting the war, but a President that you don't like due to ideological political differences. Had there been a democrat in office this term, these protests would not be happening.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross

Post Number: 554
Registered: 9-2004


Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I believe that if you ask a question that you already 'know' the answer to then you aren't interested in an actual answer or discussion. You have no way to tell what people would or would not be doing.

Oh yeah, and Kerry said he would keep troops in Iraq, didn't he?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk

Post Number: 142
Registered: 8-2001


Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

First of all, we were protesting the manipulation and misrepresentation that got us into the war as much as the War itself. If any other President distorted facts the way he and his administration has and do, we'd be just as upset.

Secondly, John Kerry advoctated making a real worldwide coalition, not a "You forgot Poland!" sham of one to help bring an international resolution to this problem. If he had been elected and moved away from that position, we would be upset.

Finally, and this is important, when John Kerry said he would have voted the same way had he known there were no WMP's, many people I know, myself included, were mad as hell at him. That position is dead wrong.

In the end we are protesting the War and the man repsonsible. What's so unfair about that? Had there been an honest and intelligent President in office in 2000, then we'd be putting the majority of efforts in Afghanistan and against Osama and Al Queda, not manipulating the truth to take an unjustified and unrelated shot at Iraq.

Yeah, there a million reasons I'm incredibly embrarrased to have George Bush as my President, and you know what, the Iraq War happens to be a GREAT ONE.

And for the record, I'm not embarrassed to be an American, so don't bother telling me to move to Canada (or Cuba, as someone did at the rally). I know that this country can -- and will -- elect better leaders. We certainly can't do worse.

The most unfortunate thing of all is that there's always been a fantastic, honest, intelligent, and very popular Republican candidate for President -- John McCain, whom I'd be happy to support, and keep in mind I'm a proud liberal. It's just sad to see your party so hijacked by the far right that he not only doesn't have a shot, but is ridiculed constantly by his own folk.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish

Post Number: 26
Registered: 6-2004
Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"It's just sad to see your party so hijacked by the far right that he not only doesn't have a shot, but is ridiculed constantly by his own folk."

Pot - kettle - Black

Hate to break the news to you, but the democrats have moved much more to the left than the repubs have to the right. The spokespeople for your party are now Ted "I'm a drunk, hick-up, murderer" Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hilary "I'll fake like I'm a centrist to get elected" Clinton.

This party does not represent American values and is doomed to fail. And as much as you Dems love to put Big willy Clinton out there as the posterboy for how great the democratic party is, he singlehandledly brought your party to shambles and gave the us the majority that we have today.

Hate to tell ya, but if you couldn't win this election the future is very dim for the democratic party.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 3301
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 5:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The most unfortunate thing of all is that there's always been a fantastic, honest, intelligent, and very popular Republican candidate for President -- John McCain, whom I'd be happy to support, and keep in mind I'm a proud liberal."

McCain -- the great anti-war president??? Check out his voting record.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Citizen
Username: Anon

Post Number: 1715
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 5:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hillary Clinton is for the War.
Pat Buchanan is against the War.

The same people who protested the Vietnam War when Democrat Johnson was President also protested when Republican Nixon was President.

I think it's ridiculous to think that people are protesting the war just because they don't like Bush for other reasons. If there were no war, would they be protesting Bush for not starting a war?

Are there people against the war who are not protesting it because they like Bush?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell

Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Joel,

I appreciate your effort to be "helpful" but if you don't mind, South Mountain Peace Action would prefer to do its own PR, especially for our Be About Peace Day events.

South Mountain Peace Action will present a full report to the MOL community on our events yesterday at Maplewood Memorial Library (where more than 300 children and adults participated) and the Ethical Culture Society (where more than 100 people participated, including Congressman Donald Payne) in the near future.

Thank you,

Paul Surovell
Chair
South Mountain Peace Action
973-763-9493
paul4sure@aol.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chronic Pain
Citizen
Username: Chronic_pain

Post Number: 20
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's High Noon in Maplewood. In this corner, Paul "Take Back WBAI "and Congressman Donald "the Hack" Payne. In that corner, Joel "i'm more patriotic than you" TFK. Let the games begin.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk

Post Number: 143
Registered: 8-2001


Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Paul,

Sorry I offended by congratulating you. I'm just saying you got some good media hits.

Chronic,

It's not high noon (though your post was amusing). We've always maintained these are complementary, not opposing goals, and many attended events by both groups. South Mountain gets a huge draw and rightly so. (There I go again, saying something nice).

I'll also say I'm only representing myself as a member of one of these groups. I don't speak for the group as a whole.

Sylvester says: "Hate to tell ya, but if you couldn't win this election the future is very dim for the democratic party". Very true. If we can't beat the most profoundly inept and wrong-headed President in anyone's memory, then that's a big problem we've got to solve. And it certainly won't be solved single-handedly by Ted, Howard or Hillary. Who knew we were in such agreement?

And on McCain, I have no idea what his war record is to be honest, but I already like the guy 1000% more than Bush. The better question is: why don't his fellow Republicans?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell

Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Joel,

No personal offense was taken and of course I have no problem when you say nice things about South Mountain Peace Action.

My request is that you not lump together the outcomes of our two groups' events as you did in the first post, because they were not the same.

Thanks again,

Paul Surovell
Chair
South Mountain Peace Action
973-763-9493
paul4sure@aol.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve R Jones
Citizen
Username: Sjthinker

Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

pssst ! the war is over. if you are protesting what/who got us into this war ("we were protesting the manipulation and misrepresentation that got us into the war") then it's really not an anti-war rally (unless it's the war on terror, which I guess you could also be protesting) but an anti-Bush rally.

Call it what it is, because we can see through the charade.

None the less, I am planning on having a "Stop the Vietnam War" rally to proclaim my unhappiness with the Johnson years.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro

Post Number: 782
Registered: 5-2004


Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry. I must have missed that announcement. When exactly did the war end?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk

Post Number: 144
Registered: 8-2001


Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm no war scholar, but here are some of what I consider rational signs that a war has ended:

1) The troops left in place are fewer than those who fought the war

IRAQ: Nope.

2) The troops left in place are less frequently attacked than those who fought the war

IRAQ: Nope.

3) The enemies during post-war military activity are significantly different than those fought during the war

IRAQ: Nope.

4) There was a significant amount of time between the end of hostilities and an insurgency

IRAQ: Nope.

5) Fewer casuaties after the war than during

IRAQ: Nope.

6) The cost of funding post-war activities is less than funding the war.

IRAQ: Nope.

7) It would be politically embarrasing or disadvantageous to the current administration to suggest that a war was still being fought.

IRAQ: Aha! Here we go. Bush says there's no war, then I guess there's no war. Silly me to think that anything falling from his lips is anything short of gospel.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell

Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Steve,

Families of the 22 American GIs killed in Iraq so far this month might disagree with you.

Are you suggesting that servicemen and women in Iraq should not be getting combat pay and bonuses?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda

Post Number: 2724
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sylvestor: "...Deep down I believe you are not protesting the war, but a President that you don't like due to ideological political differences..."

Can't we do BOTH?

-s.

BTW: Gotta say: I was really disappointed by the puny turnout of single women...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey

Post Number: 1108
Registered: 8-2003


Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

you guys are on to us opponents of the war - we're really just still upset that Gore lost. if Gore had lied us into a war in Iraq, we'd be cheering instead of protesting. because you're right - we're all partisan hypocrites with no core beliefs. war, peace, whatever. all that matters is loving Dems and hating Reps.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 3306
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's a successful rally that took place, per the thread that took place. Successful because it happened?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1479
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Do you have memories of the Democrats being happy when Johnson lied the country into Vietnam? Is that the problem?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell

Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 5:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CJC:

You pose a valid question.

South Mountain Peace Action's Be About Peace Day was successful in a number of respects:

We had very large turnouts from the community at both parts of the event -- Maplewood Memorial Library, where at least 300 people took part in Arts-and-Crafts-for-Peace activities and the Ethical Culture Society, where at least 100 people took place in an evening meeting that included a concert, speeches and a Candlelight Vigil to dedicate a peace memorial.

At the evening event we were pleasantly surprised to be joined by Congressman Payne, who earlier in the week was one of 43 Representatives who voted "no" on the administration's request to pour another $80 billion of our national treasure down the black hole of the Iraq occupation.

At both events, there was a diverse crowd in every respect, representing all parts of the community and all age levels.

There was a very positive feeling among participants -- both events were calls for peace on the second anniversary of the war, but while the meaning of the day was solemn, the spirit of the events was upbeat and uplifting.

Maplewood now has a beautiful peace memorial dedicated to the memory of our fallen soldiers and the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives. The memorial was created by children during the afternoon events at the library and installed and dedicated in a candlelight vigil at our evening event at the Ethical Culture Society.

Both events were also successful because they provide South Mountain Peace Action with a springboard to carry forward its petition campaign (which has collected about 1,400 signatures locally) to urge our Senators and Congressmen to speak out against the war and to work for an international solution led by the United Nations to allow a rapid return home of US soldiers.

One of the four representatives spoke out strongly with his "no" vote last week, and spoke out strongly at our meeting on Saturday night.

We have presented the petitions and a set of written questions to both Senators, and we will present them to the Congressmen next week.

South Mountain Peace Action's events were successful because they created a meaningful opportunity for many people in our community to express their call for peace and because the events motivate further actions and events to follow up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 3323
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's an international solution led by the United Nations:

By Andrei Khalip
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters) - The
Brazilian-led U.N. peacekeeping force in Haiti has failed to
protect people and bring stability to the country because of a
timid and complacent attitude, a leading international human
rights group said Tuesday.
"After eight months under MINUSTAH's watch, Haiti is as
insecure as ever," Global Justice said in a report.
The 7,400-strong U.N. peacekeeping force made up of
soldiers and police from several nations deployed in June last
year after a rebellion that forced elected Haitian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide into exile in February.
Brazil's leading role in the mission is part of a
government drive to establish the country as a regional
diplomatic power.
In Brazil, critics say the Haiti venture could become
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's first big foreign policy
mistake as armed factions are growing more violent, raising the
risk people will turn against the foreign troops. On Sunday,
two peacekeepers from Sri Lanka and Nepal became the first U.N.
troops to be killed by violence in Haiti since the
international force went to the country. Brazil has about 2,000
peacekeepers in the force.
Global Justice, which sent delegations to Haiti in October
2004 and January 2005, said the failures resulted largely from
the "timid interpretation of its mandate" by the United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti, or MINUSTAH.
MINUSTAH officials had no immediate comment.
Global Justice said the peacekeeping force "continues to
interpret its mandate complacently and with a narrowness unfit
for the situation on the ground."
It said the force had not even started to implement a
comprehensive disarmament program, with armed groups, such as
former soldiers of Haiti's disbanded army and pro-Aristide
gangs, controlling large areas of the country.
The force failed to investigate severe human rights abuses
by the Haitian police and even provided protection and
equipment for them to wage a campaign of terror in the slums,
it said.
"In short, MINUSTAH has effectively provided for the
continuation of impunity in Haiti," it said, quoting claims
Haitian police carried out arbitrary arrests and summary
executions.
It said the promotion of police reform in Haiti was utterly
ineffective and MINUSTAH did nothing to improve the situation
of returned refugees and displaced persons.
Global Justice added it was not too late to start
implementing the mandate earnestly.
"We continue to believe MINUSTAH holds tremendous promise
to help Haiti achieve peace, stability and respect for human
rights. With elections slated for the end of 2005, the time is
now for MINUSTAH to act."
It called for a strategy to disarm all armed groups and the
former military as soon as possible, constantly oversee police
operations and investigations and stop giving logistic support
to the police during operations that result in violations of
human rights.
REUTERS

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell

Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:40 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CJC:

You're right, the UN mission in Haiti is entirely inadequate, primarily because it was not created to restore the democratically elected President Aristede, who was forced at gunpoint into exile by the Bush administration.

The administration's crushing of democracy in Haiti in order to support the upper class against the poor is an excellent case-study to consider in connection with Bush administration pronouncements on democracy.

United Nations actions in Haiti or Iraq, or anywhere else, can only be successful if they have the full support of the United States. The experience of the Unmovic inspections for WMDs is a good example.

The inspections were extremely effective as long as they were supported by the US. But when Bush chose war over inspections, the UN effort was obliterated.

A United Nations-led solution in Iraq can only happen if the Bush administration changes course and commits to withdraw its forces and to support a robust UN effort to restore Iraq to sovereignty.

There are many in the peace movement who oppose this proposal, claiming that -- as you do -- that the United Nations is not up to the job. They advocate simply that the US withdraw.

But the United Nations is capable of doing anything that its member states want it to do -- as long as those members include the United States.

And if the Bush administration can be convinced to withdraw from Iraq, there is no reason why it could not be convinced to support United Nations leadership in the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 3327
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Paul -- the US is supporting the UN in Haiti. It's not a question of cash or moral support here. The problem is...it's being run by the UN. The problem is it's 'timid and complacent,' and basically ineffective if boots need to be on the ground with any muscle and planning behind it.

I also didn't read the article where the US threatened to kill Aristede if he didn't leave. Could you post that?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell

Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CJC:

The chief problem with the UN operation in Haiti is that its mission is to enforce the removal of the democratically elected President of Haiti.

There is no military force, UN or otherwise, that could effectively enforce this unpopular mission upon the Haitian people.

If you attribute the failure of this mission to the UN as an institution, then you should also attribute the failure of the US military to establish order and security in Iraq on the US military as an institution.

The US military as an institution is not the problem in Iraq, just as the UN as an institution is not the problem in Haiti.

The US military has been tasked with occupying and subjugating a country which never threatened or attacked the US. The UN forces in Haiti have been tasked with enforcing the overthrow of a democratically elected President.

History shows that these kinds of missions are destined to fail, regardless of the competence of the institutions involved.

Per your request, here's an article that reported on Aristide's claim that the US forced him out of office by gunpoint:


quote:

Aristide Accuses US of Forcing His Ouster

By Steve Miller and Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide said last night that he was forced from his country by the U.S. military early Sunday morning, an accusation the Bush administration dismissed as "complete nonsense."

Calling his ouster a "coup d'etat" by the United States, Mr. Aristide said, "I was told that to avoid bloodshed I'd better leave." The soldiers who came to get him, he said, were "white American, white military."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, responding to complaints earlier in the day from black U.S. lawmakers and activists, said Mr. Aristide "was not kidnapped. We did not force him on the airplane. He went on the plane willingly."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the accusations were "complete nonsense," and administration officials outlined a detailed chain of events that led to Mr. Aristide's weekend departure.

"We took steps to protect Mr. Aristide, we took steps to protect his family, and they departed Haiti," he said. "It was Mr. Aristide's decision to resign."

"The idea that someone was abducted is just totally inconsistent with everything I heard or saw," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said.

But Mr. Aristide told a different story in interviews last night with CNN and the Associated Press, arranged by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, one of many black lawmakers and activists who support Mr. Aristide.

"Agents were telling me that if I don't leave they would start shooting and killing in a matter of time," Mr. Aristide said last night in an interview with the AP from Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, where he landed early yesterday.

Mr. Aristide admitted signing documents that removed him from power, but he said he had done so out of fear that the violence in his country, which has raged during the nearly monthlong political siege, would continue.

"And then, despite of diplomatic conversations we had, despite of all we did in a diplomatic way to prevent them to organize that massacre which would lead to a bloodshed, we had to leave and spent 20 hours in an American plane," he said.

His captors, he told CNN, "were not Haitian forces. They were ... Americans and Haitians together, acting to surround the airport, my house, the palace."

"No one should force an elected president to move in order to avoid bloodshed," Mr. Aristide said. "They lied to me, and they may lie to you, too."

White House officials last night had no new comment on Mr. Aristide's interviews and stood by their remarks from earlier in the day.

Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters of California and Charles B. Rangel of New York, as well as black activist and Aristide friend Randall Robinson, said in separate statements yesterday that armed U.S. guards took the Haitian leader out of his presidential home in the capital, Port-au-Prince, and put him on a plane.

Mrs. Waters told CNN that she had talked on the phone with Mr. Aristide's wife, Mildred, who said he had been "forced to leave his home."

Mrs. Waters also said that a U.S. Embassy official told Mr. Aristide that he "had to go now — that if he didn't go, he would be killed and a lot of Haitians would be killed."

Mr. Robinson, speaking from his home on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts, said Mr. Aristide had called him on a cellular phone yesterday from the Central African Republic, where the deposed leader said he was being guarded by African and French soldiers.

"The president said to me that he had been abducted from his home by about 20 American soldiers in full battle gear with automatic weapons and put on a plane" on Sunday morning, Mr. Robinson said.

Mr. Rangel said he had a similar cell-phone conversation with Mr. Aristide, who was elected to a five-year term in fractious balloting in 2001.

Administration officials yesterday offered their account of the weekend events.

Late Saturday night, James B. Foley, U.S. ambassador to Haiti, got a phone call from a high-level aide to Mr. Aristide, with a simple question: If Mr. Aristide resigned, would the United States be able to protect him?

The call prompted a series of events that included a middle-of-the-night phone call to President Bush and a scramble to find a plane to carry Mr. Aristide into exile.

The call to Mr. Foley followed consultations between Mr. Aristide and U.S. officials as Haiti plunged deeper into civil war and rebels prepared to take Port-au-Prince.

Earlier that day, the leader had learned that the United States had no plans to protect him if rebels swarmed into his presidential compound, according to a Bush administration official.

Mr. Powell had called former Rep. Ron Dellums, California Democrat, whom Mr. Aristide had hired as a Washington lobbyist, and told him that the United States had no plans to protect the deposed leader.

During the Saturday call with Mr. Foley, Mr. Aristide's aide asked whether the United States could "help facilitate his departure," Mr. McClellan said yesterday.

Mr. Foley then called the Department of State and consulted with Mr. Powell and Roger Noriega, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs. After more discussions, the ambassador called Mr. Aristide's office to say "that if he decided to leave, the United States could facilitate his departure," Mr. McClellan said.

At 1:30 a.m. Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice called Mr. Bush to inform him that Mr. Aristide was resigning, Mr. McClellan said. Mr. Bush called Mr. Rumsfeld to authorize deployment of the Marines.

Around 4:30 a.m. Sunday, Mr. Foley's deputy, Luis Moreno, went to the Haitian president's residence, where they had a "very civil, pleasant conversation," according to a senior-level State Department official.

The United States arranged for a plane to Haiti to pick up Mr. Aristide, who traveled via motorcade to the airport with his own retinue of security guards, including some contracted Americans.

Before takeoff at 6:15 a.m., Mr. Aristide gave a copy of his resignation letter to Mr. Moreno.

The aircraft had no destination until it stopped to refuel in Antigua, after which it flew to the Central African Republic, where it landed at 1 a.m. yesterday, the senior State official said.

Mr. Powell said "some 15 members of [Mr. Aristide's] personal security detachment were with him from his house to the airport, onto the plane with him, onto the refueling locations and onto the Central African Republic, and that's what's happened, notwithstanding any cell phone reports to the contrary."

The United States is supporting the creation of a "council of elders" to run Haiti, organize elections and disarm rebels in the capital.

U.S. diplomats yesterday began working to form a council of rebel leaders, Haiti government officials and the international community that within days should have about a dozen "eminent" Haitians, the State Department said.

The council would arrange presidential and parliamentary elections and regroup Haitian police who fled this month as rebels swept across the country.

Washington was focusing on forming the commission with Mr. Aristide's interim successor, Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre, Prime Minister Yvon Neptune and probably a representative from the Caribbean Community, a White House official said.

Last night, Mr. Rangel hedged his earlier remarks, saying Mr. Aristide "felt as though he was kidnapped."

"They strongly suggested that he get out of town. The military helped him make the decision," Mr. Rangel told reporters as a Congressional Black Caucus delegation met in New York last night with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Harkin said the Iowa Democrat also doubted Mr. Aristide's accusation based on a conversation with the deposed leader.

"Senator Harkin does not believe [Mr. Aristide] was kidnapped and does believe that he resigned," Allison Dobson told Newsday.

•Nicholas Kralev contributed to this report



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger

Post Number: 42
Registered: 9-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Paul said--
"Are you suggesting that servicemen and women in Iraq should not be getting combat pay and bonuses? "

GOod one--Paul. Looking out for our brothers and sisters in harms way.

One million soldiers have rotated thru the theater.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration