Once again, the major media won't report on some recent history that sheds enormous light on the current situation with Haiti and the country's deposed president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
The blame for the Aristide mess is being placed at the doorstep of the Bush White House.
But the Haiti problem, like so many of George Bush's troubles, finds its origin in the previous administration.
When a senior CIA officer reported in 1993 that Aristide was mad, the White House asked CIA chief James Woolsey to fire the analyst who gave the briefing. Woolsey refused, but we hear that the CIA analyst was exiled to the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, where he remained until he retired a few years ago.
Inside sources say CIA officers stood by the agency's assessment of Aristide, but meanwhile the Clinton administration restored Aristide to power.
A report by the Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney noted during the Clinton years: "U.S. Intelligence believes Aristide to be a clinical psychotic, an individual who is sufficiently mentally unstable as to require medication and institutional treatment for depression and megalomania. The center has learned, moreover, that he is addicted to the drugs that stabilize his condition."
At the very least, Aristide's established record of anti-democratic behavior should have given the Clinton administration pause.
CBS news reported that during the brief period when Aristide was president of Haiti he encouraged the "necklacing" of his political opponents, the practice of lighting gasoline-laden tires placed around the victim's neck. Aristide said of necklacing: "What a beautiful tool, what a beautiful instrument, what a beautiful device, it's beautiful, yes, it's beautiful, it's cute, it's pretty, it has a good smell. Wherever you go you want to inhale it."
And the New York Times has ignored Wall Street Journal reports that Aristide's government has been heavily involved with drug traffickers.
Other evidence suggests that Aristide had bought off key Democratic Party operatives.
A Times report from 1995 states, "The agency [CIA] denies it had its own policy agenda at the time or that it was trying to subvert Administration policy. But the whole episode should lead to some searching questions as the CIA struggles to refashion itself. The CIA has no obligation to produce intelligence reports that hew to Administration views, but is obliged not to obstruct the execution of American foreign policy."
Wouldn't it be nice if such an editorial appeared in the Times today?
Hhhhmmmm
Hog
