Who is (paying for) suing Aristide?

Congressperson Maxine Waters asks an interesting question: who paying for the lawsuit against Aristide?

Good question.

Before going on, here is the press release [highlights mine]:

Washington, D.C. - Today, Rep. Maxine Waters (CA-35) sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking her to explain how the interim government of Haiti is financing the civil lawsuit it filed in a U.S. District Court against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and several co-defendants for allegedly stealing money from the Haitian treasury.

"I want to know how the interim government of Haiti is financing this lawsuit," said the Congresswoman, "and I want to know whether the interim government's allegations against President Aristide have been investigated sufficiently by the U.S. Government to justify the expenditures for this lawsuit."

President Aristide, the democratically-elected president of Haiti, was forced to leave Haiti in a coup d'etat on February 29, 2004. The interim government of Haiti is in the process of organizing elections, but these elections have been postponed several times. The elections are currently scheduled for January and February of 2006.

"The interim government of Haiti has promised to hold elections," said Congresswoman Waters. "Why can't these allegations be investigated by a government that has been freely elected by the people of Haiti?"

Congresswoman Waters' letter specifically asked Secretary of State Rice whether any U.S. government funds, such as grants from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), or the National Endowment for Democracy, are being used to finance the lawsuit against President Aristide.

"Foreign aid is in demand for programs ranging from reconstruction in Afghanistan to AIDS in Africa," said the Congresswoman. "Meanwhile, the United States is facing record deficits, and Congress is considering major budget cuts in both domestic and international programs. We should not allow an un-elected government to use our foreign aid to pursue legal challenges to the elected government it replaced."

Well, I'm sure the folks over at the NED and IRI would just love to answer those questions. It is indeed puzzling to the wool being pulled over everyone's eyes again and again. Clearly, if people knew that the U.S. intentionally aided in the undermining of a democratically elected president (and probably kidnapped him), that we were installing dictators and thugs, and that our tax dollars were funding the whole thing, well, then, people would get angry. But, as usual, the press presents the situation as "confusing," "violent," "dangerous." They never mention that we funded the thugs that created the violence before Aristide's removal and that we are upholding a police state that, without popular support, leads to rebellion and violence as well.

USAID

I have long believed that USAID is too often used as a a mere propaganda and manipulation tool. Like the World Bank now run by Wolfowitz and which, by the way, became the home for Robert McNamara after Vietnam, USAID seems one of the holding tanks for influential policy-types who don't do so well when it comes to implementing their policy. Or, perhaps it is simply that reality usually trumps thier theories.

Anyway, it looks like USAID will remain just as partisan, only less professional. William Fisher over at Tom Dispatch puts it this way:

Washington is a town where the best and the brightest usually coexist with well-connected political hacks. However, the Bush administration has taken promotion of the latter to embarrassing extremes, selecting unqualified people for posts because of their political loyalty and ideological persuasion. The most recent example of this was the appointment of Paul Bonicelli to be deputy director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is in charge of all programs to promote democracy and good governance overseas.

Bonicelli is known for saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that "all non-Christians will burn in hell." It's a sensitive message, no doubt, that will bring even more stunning successes to Bush's already formidable accomplishments in world leadership.

Just kidding.

Really, what are they thinking?

OF course, all of this raises some serious questions about Haiti (not to mention Iraq). Upcoming elections are one of USAID's biggest babies, and things aren't going so well already. USAID needs a true leader, not a hack.

Jack in The Box

Sexist advertising is nothing new to Jack, whom I find (increasingly) creepy. I got this today and thought I'd share it with you. Why give a "Jack Ca$h" card? Well, among the more enlightened reasons are "Because he let you hold the remote" and "Last year you gave her a bowling ball with your name on it." I suppose the more selfish a man is, the more he is lovable and deserving of a gift. Unbelievable.

Haiti Elections Postponed...

I hate to say I told you so but I sort of told you so. Previous Department of State Musings were indeed too optimistic. The AP reports today that:

Port-au-Prince -- Haiti's electoral board yesterday again postponed the country's first elections since president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted in a rebellion almost two years ago.

The nine-member Provisional Electoral Council set a new date of Jan. 8 for presidential and legislative elections, followed by a Feb. 15 runoff, said Rosemond Pradel, the council's secretary-general.

This is the fourth date Haitian authorities have set for the elections, which were first scheduled for Nov. 13 to replace the interim government installed after Mr. Aristide's ouster in early 2004.

Things are still grim, but this chaos is some evidence that things are not going as planned--and, as you know, I think that U.S. "planning"--more aptly put as "plotting"--was treacherous and bad.