Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

***Media's Aggression towards López Obrador

by XicanoPwr Sun Aug 6th, 2006 at 03:01:38 PM EST

It is not a surprise that the Bush administration has been chagrining by the Latin American New Left. The electoral results throughout South America have not been going Dudya's way, the countries being governed by new left-leaning presidents are: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Chile. And when it comes to attacking unbacked leaders, the US is famous for its propaganda style attacks, such as those used during the US "dirty wars" in the 1980s.

The White House maintained that the an official policy is not to intervening in other countries' elections. However, this rule has always been violated when it concerns US interest and Mexico is no exception. (more below)

from the front page (with title edit) - whataboutbob


In February 2005, in congressional testimony, then-CIA director Porter Goss included Mexico in a review of "potential areas for instability," placing the country in the company of Colombia, Venezuela, and Haiti as one of the "flashpoints" in the Western Hemisphere.

POTENTIAL AREAS FOR INSTABILITY
In LATIN AMERICA, the region is entering a major electoral cycle in 2006, when Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela hold presidential elections. Several key countries in the hemisphere are potential flashpoints in 2005.

Campaigning for the 2006 presidential election in Mexico is likely to stall progress on fiscal, labor, and energy reforms.

Since the congressional testimony, Dudya was uncharacteristically been silent about Mexico's political stirrings. It was not until a few days before the July 2 election, Dudya said that it is willing to "work with whoever is chosen by the Mexican people."

Although Washington has been uncharacteristically silent, efforts to discredit Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) the pundits were tasked to do Dudya's dirty work. This time around, the strategy is to turn AMLO into a future Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's lapdog. Attack ads had the Venezuelan president's face next to AMLO's during the presidential race until it was told to take it down.

Beginning in March 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an anti-AMLO column by Mary Anastasia O'Grady - who also vehemently attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez - who argued that AMLO's opposition to President Vicente Fox's pro-corporate economic policy should signal "a worrying authoritarianism with moralistic overtones" and suggested that an alternative path for development would qualify as "wild populist experimentation."

In April 2006, Conservative Felipe Calderón - although denied by the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) - informally hired two American consultants political advisor and Fox News commentator Dick Morris and Republican strategist Rob Allyn to help him in his failing campaign. In June, El Universal report how Juan Camilo Mourino, Calderón's campaign manager, suddenly started running campaign ads that resembled those of the United States, electoral techniques evidently imported from the United States.

Importing electoral techniques from the United States .... the campaign ran a series of negative television and radio ads - the first significant use of such ads in a Mexican presidential race - portraying him as a threat to Mexico's hard-won gains.
El Universal also reported that Camilo received his training in campaign dirty tricks in the US at "campaign seminars" and he also received "advice" from Dick Morris, who supposedly didn't have "an official role in the campaign."

In May, Proceso, "Mercenary Strategists Without Rival"(in Spanish and by subscription), reported that Calderón contracted Morris and Texas-based political consultant Rob Allyn "to handle not only his image, but the development of his campaign." However, in a phone interview, Allen told Washington Post's Jefferson Morley, "I've never met Dick Morris and we're not associated in any way."

Which explains Morris' action in April 2006, when he published a couple of hit pieces - one in The New York Post, The New York Post, "Menace In Mexico" and other at the ultraconservative online magazine FrontPageMag.com, Mexico's Hugo Chavez - that linked AMLO to President Chávez. Morris' editorial attempted to terrorize readers into believing AMLO's campaign was bankrolled by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, which means Mexico will become the primary threat to US national security.  Morris also claimed an elected AMLO would be the "final piece" needed by President Chávez and Cuba's President Fidel Castro in their "grand plan to bring the United States to its knees before the newly resurgent Latin left."

Chavez is a firm ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro. Lopez Obrador could be the final piece in their grand plan to bring the United States to its knees before the newly resurgent Latin left.
Morris'  linked the so those living here and in Mexico would begin to have a distaste for economic policies that have failed Latin America by Populist leaders.

In Mexico, both Felipe Calderón Hinojosa of the right-wing PAN (the party of current president Vicente Fox) and Roberto Madrazo Pintado of the long-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), ran a barrage of negative ads that lasted for a month. The mudslinging was so bad the Federal Electoral Institute had to step in to censure a series of ads that declared AMLO "a danger to Mexico" and that likened AMLO to Chávez.

Outside of Mexico other newspapers have jumped to run similar type pieces leading up to the July 2 election. Sample of some articles:
London's Independent - "Firebrand on Bush's Doorstep";
The Atlantic Online - "The Talented Mr. Chávez";
New York Times - Bringing Mexico Closer to God
The Economist - Will the real Andrés Manuel López Obrador please stand up?

Now that the election is over in Mexico, the election results are now hanging in the balance.

In Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) fight to demand a recount of Mexico's July 2 presidential election, Prensa Latina is reporting that Mexico's "Por el Bien de Todos" coalition is presenting additional proof electoral violations took place. Among the proof to be shown will be broken seals that were illegally opened at the ballot boxes and proof that a "US daily published propaganda favoring ruling candidate Felipe Calderon three days before the election, an incident that violates the Institutional Federal Code and Electoral Procedures in Mexico."
But is the propaganda campaign over? Not be a long shot. The current oped pieces are beginning to sound a lot like the anti-Chávez meme, the only difference, Chávez is replaced by Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
Since early January 2005, major US publications and television stations have published or broadcast well over 60 articles and programs regurgitating State Department accusations that President Chávez presents a "negative force in the region," is a "threat to democracy," a "semi-dictator,"...
Latest Articles Critical Of AMLO:

July 29, 2006 - Washington Post - An Anti-Democracy Campaign: Mexico's presidential loser takes a lesson from Joseph Stalin.

Now Mr. López Obrador has launched a second populist campaign -- this time in an attempt to overturn Mexico's fragile democracy
July 28, 2006 - Los Angeles Times -  López Obrador should protest with dignity
But Lopez Obrador has said he will never accept the results because now he does not accept the legitimacy of the institutions. Like a spoiled child, he wants the right to play, but not the obligation to accept the final score. He'll try to hold Mexico hostage with street demonstrations and increasingly radical rhetoric until he gets his way. Calderon will continue to play by the rules, pursuing his own legal counter-demands through the nation's electoral tribunal and accepting whatever remedies the court orders. The contrast is deafening.

Mexico must be a nation of laws, not of men, if it is to remain a functioning democracy. Any other outcome would be a step on the road to anarchy -- a disastrous recipe for Mexico and its northern neighbor -- and a blow to the concepts of openness, democracy, tolerance and pluralism in the Americas.

July 26, 2006 - Dallas Morning News (via the Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN) - Mexico's protests have little to do with democracy
Let's be precise about what's going on in Mexico: The protests that second-place presidential finisher Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador plans to rally again Sunday are all about him, his ego and his standing. They are not about the country, not about its standing in the global economy and certainly not about its democratic evolution.
July 23, 2006 - Arizona Republic, AZ - Loser can make it a winner
Mexico's fragile new democracy needs the confidence of its people, yet Lopez Obrador seems determined to undermine faith in a system that observers inside and outside of Mexico say is working. He wants, among other things, for the tribunal to order a vote-by-vote recount of the ballots....It would be ironic if Lopez Obrador merely used his position to discredit the honest election that just took place in a nation that was once known for the creative corruption of its elections.
July 15, 2006 - Chicago Tribune - Como se dice, sore loser?
 It is his right to challenge the election, and voters are entitled to assurances that the results are fair and accurate. But that's why the elections tribunal was created, and there's every reason to believe it will do the right thing. Unfortunately Lopez Obrador seems unwilling to accept that. And that is an ominous sign for Mexico.
July 30, 2006 - Miami Herald - Challenge tests Mexican democracy
This denigration of the respected Mexican electoral system, which had just announced the triumph of hundreds of PRD candidates, and the incendiary speeches that have followed seriously threaten the peace in Mexico.

This is a film the world has seen many times. The seed of dictatorship has been planted. Impermeable to objective truth, a messiah who has proclaimed himself "indestructible" and publicly (and seriously) compared himself to Jesus, seeks to kidnap Mexican democracy. If the ransom he demands (strict obedience by the Federal Electoral Tribunal to his will) is not paid, he is prepared to set the country aflame.

Awww....American propaganda, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Display:
I have looked for mentions of violence in yesterday's huge rally, and to the great credit of the protesters, I did not read of a single incident.

I know very little about Obrador, but I like very much his 50 promises to the Mexican people if he should win.

Especially promise #36 --

Enforce the principles of non-intervention, self-determination of peoples and peaceful solutions to conflicts.

Last week Obrador was quoted as saying:

"We will go along watching the opinion of the people," he said. "If the people say that we have to carry out actions of civil disobedience, rough and forceful, we will carry them out. If the people say that we should act with less belligerence, that's how it will go."

If Obrador seeks to be a leader in favor of "peaceful solutions to conflicts", I would expect him to do more than just let the people determine how much "belligerence" they should act with.  Also, what exactly what does he mean by "rough and forceful" civil disobedience?

I certainly hope something was lost, or altered, in the translation.

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

by marco on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 01:15:51 AM EST
Possibly lost in translation, and he possibly means road blocks and other riskier forms of civil disobedience.

Days ago, Reuters wrote about and quoted AMLO:

Despite strong rhetoric about a "dirty war" against him, Lopez Obrador has kept protest rallies by his backers peaceful. This week, supporters protested in the lobby of an upscale hotel and lit hundreds of candles in the Zocalo square.

The leftist plans to announce a civil resistance campaign at a rally in central Mexico City on Sunday as the next step in pushing for a vote-by-vote recount.

"We are not going to sit here with our arms folded," he said in an advance copy of the interview made available to Reuters.

Asked whether civil disobedience could include blocking roads and taking over Mexico's international airports or highways, Lopez Obrador said: "Everything that could mean civil resistance. Everything that could mean defending the vote, defending democracy. The limit is nonviolence."



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 08:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am pretty sure there was something more to it, such as a reference to historical action.

This is from his speech at his second rally which is basses of his "civil peaceful resistance."

To carry out starting this week the first actions of civil peaceful resistance. For that purpose a citizen committee will be formed to decide what type of actions and in what circumstances they will be carried out in practice.
Our MSM have been trying to nail down this guy as someone looking for violent solution. Here is an OpEd for an example of this tactic  
Meanwhile, Lopez Obrador has given his adoring supporters ambiguous directions. He prompted two protest rallies in Mexico City, one reportedly the largest demonstration in the country's history. These were peaceful ways for Lopez Obrador's followers to vent their frustration.

But Lopez Obrador has not spoken out forcefully enough against violence. On July 18, some of his supporters kicked and jeered at Calderon's car, and a left-wing Mexico newspaper warned that both Lopez Obrador and his followers were behaving recklessly. When his supporters chant, "Without a solution, there will be revolution," Lopez Obrador fails to stress that violence can't play any role in it.

I haven't seen that article, but this is the same thing that was said about the immigration rally here in the US. When you have that large of a crowds, you will always have an assclown who will take advantage of it. And those assclowns are called operatives meant to create havoc so the Mexican wingnuts can say "Gotcha!"

Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today. - Gandhi
by XicanoPwr (chicanopwr at gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 08:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I read that article as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I was so frustrated and exasperated when massive rallies had literally no effect at all on influencing public opinion, much less changing the U.S. government's decision to invade Iraq (mainly due to adverse and/or non-existent media coverage.)

On the other hand, would I have been in favor of more demonstrations, for a paralysis of the country through civil disobedience?

I have yet to think it through, but as with Florida fiasco in the 2000 U.S. presidential elections, as with the alleged vote-rigging in Ohio during the 2004 U.S. presidential election, I think the reason that I decided to "let it be", despite my intense outrage, was that I recognized that even if some wrongdoing had occurred -- deception of the people by the government with respect ot Iraq, vote-tampering with respect to the presidential elections -- the basic balance of opinion in the country was nevertheless too close, and not in favor of my own position by enough of a margin to disturb the entire country just to promote my own political stance.

Having said that, what percentage of the U.S. south was in favor of civil rights, and what percentage of India was in favor of independence from Britain, when King and Gandhi incited massive action through civil disobedience in those two countries?

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

by marco on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 07:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. Political protest is as much about standing up for your ideas and trying to convince others with your stand than showing your numbers.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:17:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Protest, I have no doubts about.  It's civil disobedience that I am less sure of.  (Violent civil disobedience is unjustified no matter the cause, in my mind.  But even non-violent civil disobedience must be used very judiciously, I think.)

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
by marco on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:44:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the basic balance of opinion in the country was nevertheless too close, and not in favor of my own position by enough of a margin to disturb the entire country just to promote my own political stance.

It is exactly when the balance of opinion is too close that protest is necessary. If the balance is clearly one way or another there is no need for the majority to demonstrate nor a chance for the minority to change the balance.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:32:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If the balance is clearly one way or another there is no need for the majority to demonstrate nor a chance for the minority to change the balance.

Except in the all too common case where a minority has disproportionate power with which it can impose its will against a majority.  In that situation, civil disobedience is clearly in order.

As for the "too close to call" case, I need to think about it more.  What percentage of the French population was against the CPE law when it first was passed?  I guess in that case, it was not so much how many people were for or against it, but how many people were even aware of it, or cared about it.  I guess that is another constructive function of protests, and perhaps, yes, civil disobedience: raising awareness and educating the third parties about the issue.

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

by marco on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:43:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Among the white population of the South? about ten to fifteen percent.

In India, independence was much more popular.

One thing to remember is that the British Government was pro-independence too, and the US federal government was very much pro-civil rights starting with the Truman administration.

In order for popular revolution to prevail in most countries, you have to have the partial support of the "enemy." If the federal government was against integration it wouldn't have happened.

by messy on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What massive rallies against invading Iraq? Are you saying that there were some? (Anti-American rallies in Europe don't count.) As far as I know, there was little opposition to the invasion of Iraq until things fell apart. The leadership of both American parties supported it--to the regret of many of them later on...
by asdf on Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 at 09:24:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have to agree the US rallies in the winter of 2003 were pathetic. I was there in LA and can attest to that.

The massive rallies in Rome, Madrid and London do count.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 at 09:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If they were Anti-American rallies, then surely the French rallies would have been gigantic too, seeing how more anti-American they are than, say, the Brits. But they weren't. Could it be because in Madrid and London people demonstrated against their government's involvement in the war? Or are the French just bad at demonstrating?
by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 at 09:48:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Three weeks ago the NYT said in an editorial that Obrador's demands for a full recount were legitimate and called on the US government to call for one as well

A recount in Mexico
NYT editorial July 7
[...]
Mexico used to be a global leader in election fraud. In 1988, when early results showed that a challenger to the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party was ahead, the government announced that its vote-counting computer system had mysteriously broken down. It later released a count showing a narrow victory for the incumbent party. What happened on Sunday is a far cry from those bad old days. The Federal Election Institute is one of Mexico's best-functioning institutions, and although it has been widely criticized for aspects of how it has handled this election, there have been no credible allegations of organized widespread fraud.

But there are enough problems to warrant a complete recount. Some polling stations that have recounted their ballots have found that the votes were misrecorded on tally sheets. The earlier discrepancies appeared to largely favor Mr. Calderón, in at least one case mistakenly awarding him hundreds of extra votes. The I.F.E. cannot legally order a recount of the entire presidential election. But the Federal Election Tribunal, an independent panel created to handle these kinds of disputes, could. In previous races, it has even gone so far as to call new elections in the states of Tabasco and Colima.

(subscriber only, so no link)

by MarekNYC on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 02:12:19 AM EST
The NYT can turn on a dime and I am surprised they haven't or maybe they have and if not being made a big deal because of that OpEd piece, which was very good.

Then again, BushCo does consider the NYT to be a liberal rag. ;)

Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today. - Gandhi

by XicanoPwr (chicanopwr at gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 09:03:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a detailed account of the state of the Mexican elections [and MSM representation of them] as of Aug 3:

Evidence of Election Fraud Grows in México
.

by cigonia on Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 at 06:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I certainly sense a media campaign against AMLO and the Yellow Revolution (the name that would be logical to use for the Western media but the one they won't adopt). One strange thing is that every Reuters article on the subject is titled "leftist" this "leftist" that, without names, for example the latest: Mexico leftists try to shut capital in vote battle.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 07:59:07 AM EST
It is funny, the election was not really talked about until it was the week of the election. I think BushCo thought it would go smoothly, in other words, without media coverage like Peru's and Columbia's election, where BushCo got the people they wanted and the media hardly covered their election.

I think that will be the next diary, a comparison of how those elections with this one. They had exactly the same results in Mexico. AMLO projected to win and in the end and a surprise, lost.

The similarities between Mexico and Columbia/Peru's election

  1. Urbi and García were not projected be their countries President and they are;
  2. Both countries had a lot of irregularities in their election;
  3. Both countries had very minimal coverage in the our MSM.

The only difference now between Mexico and Columbia/Peru, is the post-election coverage.

What if there was full coverage of the election and the post-election here in US, would projected to winner before the election be President now? That is an answer we never will know.

AMLO and the Yellow Revolution, I like it.

If we are suppose to be the new media then we shall adopt it, therefore, we should try really hard to mention it as often as we can, "AMLO and the Yellow Revolution."

Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today. - Gandhi

by XicanoPwr (chicanopwr at gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 08:54:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I beg to differ on one small point: predicting García's victory in Peru. I covered that election on ET, and noticed that most polls about possible second-round match-ups saw Ollanta Humala losing against García, quite possibly because of true-blue right-wingers opting for the 'less bad' from their viewpoint rather than stay at home. (On the other hand, given the election irregularities and slow counting, I submit it could be that García lost in reality, and polls were either simply off or worse, not representative.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 10:26:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I can do, is look at what you wrote and see the sources you used and I can see what I find and share it with you and go from there. No need to recreate some thing you already covered and your knowledge of the Peruvian election.

Given the track record of BushCo fixing elections and only calling the validity of those election that didn't go their way, it does have to make you wonder a bit when they start throwing in those magic terms such as "free and fair" and "commitment to democracy."

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said June 5 that the United States congratulated the Peruvian people "on what would seem to be an open election free of violence."  McCormack said the United States had not heard any serious reports of electoral irregularities, "so this is an important moment for the Peruvian people."

McCormack said the United States will have an assessment of how Peru's election was conducted on "whether or not it was free and fair."  The spokesman said the results of the election were "up to the Peruvian people and we will respect whatever results the Peruvian people express through the ballot box."

The United States previously commended Peruvians on their commitment to democracy while withholding comment on the country's presidential candidates.

Iraqi Elections: "To Be Free and Fair..."

Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today. - Gandhi
by XicanoPwr (chicanopwr at gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 01:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Upon checking my earlier diaries and sources, some correction: before the first round, it was right-wing candidate Lourdes Flores Nano who consistently beat Humala in a hypothetical runoff vote in opinion polls; but between the two rounds, García beat Humala in every poll. Interestingly, it was García who most vehemently protested poll results, and that for favoring Lourdes over him.

Note that in the first round, the two main candidates acceptable to Washington got 48.1% together vs. Humala's 30.6%, with two more ex-Fujimori right-wingers getting another 12.2%, which is beyond the margin of disputed ballots, and which makes the relative narrowness of Ollanta Humala's second-round defeat (given that voting is compulsory) the more impressive. (BTW, he himself conceded, while Lourdes Flores wouldn't concede her third place in the first round for almost a month.)

So all in all, I'd say: to give a different result, the scale of the needed vote tampering would be so large that it would have been more than enough for the US to propel Lourdes Flores not only into second but first place in the first round. On the other hand, the US could well have had a role in the campaign, and that while betting on multiple horses in the race.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 03:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that various elements of the privately owned, U.S. based press are negative or positive towards a particular political candidate (in the U.S. or foreign country) is a given.  That doesn't equate to U.S. Government interference in another country's internal affairs.

"The White House maintained that the an official policy is not to intervening in other countries' elections. However, this rule has always been violated when it concerns US interest and Mexico is no exception. (more below)"  

"Awww....American propaganda, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

One could get the idea from these statements and all in between that the White House controls the U.S. press.  I've never (maybe naively) heard anything like that alleged in a mainstream forum. I always enjoy a good conspiracy theory, however, so entertain me.

I happen to agree that AMLO is now officially out of line and, as stated by Mexican Government officials, illegally so.  His move to bring Mexico City to its knees and influence the IFE tribunal's decision by blocking main avenues is nothing but blackmail from a candidate who received only 34-35% of the total vote. AMLO would probably have no chance in a two party run off election.  At one time, I sriously thought that he might be good for Mexico, but the more I see of his antics the more he looks like dictator material. I suspect that if a 100% recount were made, he would still be unsatisfied if it didn't give him the Presidency.   From Mexico:

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:24:40 AM EST
Frankly, I wish Gore would have asked for protests...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I was miffed at the Gore/Bush election outcome too, but I can't imagine Americans getting steamed enough over an election results to protest with anything close to the vigor of the Mexican followers of AMLO.  We are too used to relatively fair elections, and the Mexican have, sadly, had nothing but the opposite for so many years.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
P.S. See Aug 2nd Christian Science Monitor article by Sara Miller Llana titled : "Obrador Takes Risks With Mexico Protests" at www.topix.net for further examples of U.S. Govt. "propaganda."

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:48:34 AM EST
I tried to check out this article ("Obrador Takes Risks With Mexico Protests by Llana) but couldn't locate it...got a direct link by chance?

The only article I found was by Reuters...they have a distinctively pro-biz orientation...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 12:04:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Try http://www.topix.net/content/csm/0351841985095628649012464349433511784403

I also went to the CS Monitor Page and althought the article is listed, I couldn't get it to come up there.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 12:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, I was able to get there. It will be interesting to see how this evolves...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 03:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just one more American propaganda article, this time from the British Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1835602,00.html

I only take exception to the article's description of AMLO's home as "a swampy, southeastern backwater."  Since that is where I am now living, I think accuracy dictates that they include the descriptives "mosquito ridden and inferno." No wonder El Peje is such a sore loser!

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 at 09:00:10 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries