Unconditional Love

Gene Simmons eat your heart out....

Babalú: the dog with a blog.

Photo by Tom the Official Drunken ManCamp Photographer, who just happened to fall into the canal a short while after taking this picture.

The more things change...

...the more they stay the same...

Cuba and Russia rekindle torrid love affair.

Play it again, Sam.

BREAKING NEWS - UPDATED

Reports from Cuba are that Cuban TV is showing the flag at half-mast and showing old footage from the start of the revolution.

More details as they become available.

1. UPDATE (Henry): None of the local media that would be monitoring Cuban broadcasts is confirming these reports at this point. Stay tuned.
2. UPDATE (Pitbull): The original came from report from WQBA via the show with Jose Alfonso Almora and Bernadette Pardo. Reliable sources with these contacts would be appreciated. Email me at spectator AT babalublog DOT com.
3. UPDATE (Val): I just want to interject here that two of Cuba's telecommunications directors were removed from office last week and replaced with new Information Technology and Communications Minister Ramiro Valdes. This guy is old school and we should take these reports with skepticism as this could all be part and parcel of an old Soviet style misinformation campaign.
4. UPDATE (Henry): We are hearing that this is perhaps not the death we have been anxiously awaiting but a death nonetheless. Raul Castro's wife, Vilma Espin, has been allegedly very sick in recent months and weeks. A very visible person in Cuba's Revolution since the beginning, Espin's death would make sense as the reason for flags at half staff, etc.
5. UPDATE: More information from Charlie Bravo.

Oxford English Dictionary adds a new definition for chutzpah

From the Senator from New York State, Hillary Rodham Clinton:

"On every issue, there are big differences" between Democrats and Republicans, "but the biggest difference is the disregard for our constitutional democracy, the disdain for checks and balances, the denial of accountability that marks this president and vice president," Clinton said, "and that's really our entire system being put at risk."

Ha. Ha ha. Bwa ha ha. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. ROTFLMAO!

(H/T CNS News)

I rest my case

As if to underscore my point in the previous post, this just appeared on The Drudge Report.

Why liberals piss me off

Conservatives are called many names by the left and the uninformed. The favorites are "Nazi," "fascist," "racist," "bigot," "alarmist," "neo-con," "mysogonist," "homophobe": you name it, we've been called it. I take those names in stride knowing full well that the historical knowledge necessary to use big words like "Nazi" and "fascist" are beyond the mental capabilities of 97.4% of libs. When they put down their coloring books and crayons, and turn off Air America or The Teletubbies, they tend to whine and whine and whine, get in touch with their feelings, eat tofu, and yell "it's not fair!" for hours on end. After all that hard work, they don't have a lot of time left to read and think and analyze -- not that they'd have the inclination to that in the first place, of course.

Real conservatives, conservatives who believe in the libertarian tenets of the Founding Fathers, believe that we the people must be protected from government. Hence, our Constitution has ten enumerated amendments that do just that: put limits on what the government cannot do to it's citizens. The Bill of Rights*, therefore, should prevent the goverment from interfering in my life, as long as I am law-abiding and I do not interfere with someone else's rights. Those same rights should should be granted to businesses, as well.

A couple of days ago, a news story appeared (referenced by Ziva) that explained that the city of New York was banning trans-fats in the cooked food prepared in the 25,000+ eating establishments in the city. For those of you who do not know, trans-fats are the substances in fried foods that make you fat, cause high cholesterol, exacerbate global warming and promote Islamic terrorism. I read the story with interest because of something that I warned people about many years ago.

I am a smoker. I smoke cigarettes and cigars. Yes, yes, I know. They are bad for me. They cause cancer, heart disease, and storms on Jupiter. Thanks for your concern, now mind your own business. It is my choice to do this, regardless of whether it is stupid or not. That, in essence, is the heart of what America is should be. I choose to smoke. In 1998, when the former Administration (in a move that would make Tony Soprano proud) began extorting money from the tobacco companies -- legal, highly regulated, tax-paying businesses -- I told anyone who would listen that if this blackmail was allowed to happen, anything the liberals wanted to regulate was fair game: fatty burgers, french fries, coffee, donuts. Because, of course, as we are all well aware, liberals know better than we do about what's good for us. "Choice" is something liberals will give you only if it's their choice. It's OK to give the "choice" to kill unborn babies, but don't you fucking dare light that cigarette! Predictably, I was called an "alarmist," among other things, and I was told that it was us, the eeeeeevvvvil right-wingers, who wanted to control the lives of Americans. As I've written before, liberals may have the monopoly on stupidity, but they don't have a grasp on irony.

So now, New York City is attacking french fries, donuts, burgers, anything containing trans-fats. Why? Well they say it's for health reasons, because "they care," but I know better. Just as in the cigarette case, it's nothing but but a cheap money-grab. Filthy lucre, greed. You know, what we conservatives are constantly accused of being. Today it's fines leveled against restarants, tomorrow they'll tax the fatty foods. The food products will be heavily regulated, the flavor excised, and they'll be heavily taxed to boot.

Here's my message to all of you liberal lifestyle fascists: If it's really bad, then stop being hypocrites and ban them. I know that'll put a stop to the billions that enter your coffers for more mind-control of the masses with socialism and political correctness, but you'll be doing what you know deep-down is the right thing.

And thank you, Mayor Bloomberg, for a delicious, deep-fried "I told you so" moment.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Three Guys from Miami

Even though I was only supposed to be in DC for one complete day staying at my buddy Bill Ardolino's place, I knew that if I didnt have my morning cafecito cubano that I'd be walking around the Nation's Capitol like a zombie. So, I took the liberty of sending Bill a cafetera and a pound of Cafe Bustelo, because, you know, I need my morning cafecito no matter where Im at.

The same thing goes for Cuban food. First thing I ate when I got home was a huge plate of arroz con pollo. I just cant live without my comida criolla. There's just something about the aroma of a Cuban kitchen.

Ziva posted about the Three Guys from Miami and their new cookbook "Celebrate Cuban" the other day and as luck would have it, if you happen to be in Miami this weekend, you'll be able to get your own copy, autographed by the three Cuban Culinary Masters from Miami.

On Saturday, the Three Guys will have a book signing at 2:00 PM at Sentir Cubano (With artist Tony Mendoza)

3100 SW 8th St.
Miami, FL 33135 305-644-8870
(Four blocks east of Versailles Restaurant.)

And on Sunday, they'll be at the Red/Bird Shopping plaza at 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM at Walgreen's, Red Bird Shopping Center

5731 Bird Rd
Miami, FL 33155 305-666-3393
(Corner of Bird and Red, behind the Red Bird Citgo Station.)

So, if you're in Miami, do yourselves a favor and swing by either of these events. You'll not only get your own signed copy of "Celebrate Cuban", but you'll meet three really cool cats and very good friends of mine. And as I've said before, get two copies. You'll want a working copy in the kitchen and a conversation copy on your living room coffee table.

Celebrate Cuban.

Chavez's Oil On Fire

The Real Cuba has reports of a huge explosion and oil fire in Havana's largest refinery, read all about it here.

More here.

Can't seem to find anything on this from other MSM sources, specifically, those with bureaus in Havana. 'natch.

How long before the spin laying blame on the Miami Mafia begins?

Te la comistes, caballo!

That's all I could say to Iowahawk after reading this.

You ate it, horse!

I Reckon There's Cubans in Atlanta, Too

I just read this over at Yucabay, and it reminded me of an email I got last week that I meant to forward and post:

No se a quien me dirijo con este email, pero acabo de encontrar esta pagina y me decidi a escribir. Veran, he vivido en Miami desde que llegue de Cuba en el 99. Hace año y pico que vivo en Atlanta ya que decidi venir a Georgia Tech. Por cierto estoy aun haciendo tareas a estas horas de la noche y pensaba ... concho, me hace falta tener mas amistades cubanas :) Asi que decidi hacer una busqueda en google y encontre esta pagina. Escribo con todas las esperanzas de que existan mas cubanos aqui y que pueda llegar a conocerlos. Por favor si alguien lee este correo , responda al mio.

Translation:

I do not whom Im addressing with this email, but I have just found this webpage and decided to write. You see, I've lived in miami since I came from Cuba in 99. I decided to go to Georgia tech and Ive been living in Atlanta for over a year. I was doing homework at this late hour and was thinking...darn, I need to find some Cuban friends. :). So i decided to do a Google search and found this page. I write with all hope that there are more Cubans here and that I may get to meet them. please, if you read this email, respond to mine.

Ive withheld publishing her email as I dont want her getting spammed, but I know there's a few Babalu readers in the beautiful State of Georgia. Please email me for her contact info.

I want everyone to have a Che Guevara T-Shirt

Ever since I started my web site TrenBlindado.com, I've gotten letters from distressed people like this one:

My name is xxx and I'm a Cuban-American living in the "Oh Sí." I was out shopping with a friend the other day and we went into this little tiendita que se llama "Calacas." I thought the store was very cool until I saw hanging on the wall a bandera Cubana with the picture of Che on it. I was so furious we had to leave before I said something out of place.

Here's the thing. The Alberto Korda image of Che has always been popular but lately it's become really, really fashionable. I mean it's everywhere. GOOD! The more fashionable it is now, the less fashionable it will be later. The sooner everyone goes out there and buys their t-shirt, further enriching the capitalists, the sooner the fad will end and the all the Che Guevara t-shirts will be confined to the back of the closet along with Members Only jackets, skinny ties, Zubaz and leg warmers.

El Barbaro INDEED!!

Do we need more proof that bloggers, like Val, are beating the MSM like red-headed stepkids-- like egg-sucking dogs! Val is tearing the MSM a NEW ONE !! Their pro-Castro monopoly is OVER!! Their rants and sniffles are music to my ears.

Congrats, amigo! When you get finished with that "quality time" with the 'ole lady, just booze it up and GLOAT!

Humberto

Privilegio

One of the reasons I was in Washington DC this week was to attend the Pajamas Media panel discussion "How Partisan is Partisan?" at the National Press Club. In attendance were some very esteemed members of the blogosphere and some members of the MSM and the discussion was, naturally, about the role of blogs in the partisan political arena.

You can find some excellent commentary on the event at Josue's blog, here and here, more at Atlas Shrugs, Powerline, Ace and a great editorial link roundup here at Pajamas Media.

I wont get into parsing the editorials linked above or critiquing individual opinions. Nor will I offer up any substantial intellectual theory or provide a debate on the nuances and pros and cons of same. I will just give you all the opinion of this immigrant son of a welder:

Partisanship is a privilege.

As much as we may disagree with those who have opposing points of view and as much as we may work to disprove same, and regardless of the fact that some of those opposing views are cause for much anger and frustration and may be in absolute contrast to everything that we hold dear, we must recognize the fact that this is the inherent right of every person living in a free society.

And since not all persons are granted that right of choice or of opinion or of expression - as in the case of a country like Cuba - then those of us who can freely express our convictions without repercussion should consider it a privilege.

And that, despite all of our vast and perceived differences, makes us all pretty much the same. Right, left, center or extreme either way.

The Pin

We sat in his office at the Eisenhower building adjacent to the White House and chatted. We talked about this blog, how it came to fruition and why. We compared our childhoods and lives here in the Cuban diaspora. We spoke of our mothers and how the raised us and we talked about our fathers and how they worked so hard to provide for their families. His dad, he told me through teary eyes, had passed away six months ago.

I offered my condolences and assured him that he must have been - must still be from above - very proud of the son he raised.

As we left his office, he offered me a small token - a pin of the Presidential Seal of the United States of America in a small regal blue box - from him to give to my father. I thanked him profoundly and placed the small treasure in my suit pocket.

When I arrived back home, at my parents house, I sat down with my father and mother and wife and recounted the story of that short meeting at the Eisenhower Building. I handed the small blue box over to my father and told him this was especially for him, a small gesture from another son of Cuban parents from the White House.

My father's cumbersome and calloused hands trembled as he fidgeted the box open. After a few seconds that seemed like an eternity he managed to remove the lid and see the small treasure inside.

"When I left Cuba," he said with tears running down his aged cheeks. "We had nothing and noone. I was scared. And back then, I could never have imagined that one day my son would be a guest at the White House."

We all sat there - my father, my mother, my wife and I - in complete silence for a few moments, contemplating the efforts and sacrifices and hard work of life in exile and the absolute privilege of living in freedom.

Oh no you don't!

I saw the headline at Yahoo Featured, "Would fries be illegal" and this was the first thing I thought of.

Yes, I know fried food is bad for you, especially if it's cooked in oil containing trans fats, and I personally try to avoid them. But this isn't Cuba, and I don't think the government has any business telling us what we can or cannot eat. We don't need the food nazi's guarding our health.

Speaking of eating, that delicious frita photo is courtesy of "The Three Guys from Miami".

There are fritas and there are fritas, but you haven't lived until you've eaten one that includes Glenn's secret sauce. It's worth buying their beautiful cookbook just to get that. Truly, the books are works of art, filled with wonderful recipes and great photos, all served up Cuban style with love and humor.

Just back from DC

I just got back from our nation's capital and boy, I got some stories to tell. But first, I need to spend some major quality time with the Mrs, as this is the first time we've ever been apart since the day we met ten years ago.

Get ready for some major storytelling tomorrow.

Tolerant? Peaceful?

Read this and tell me you're not concerned. If it were an isolated wacko, I'd laugh it off; but you hear this a lot these days.

Anecdotes

I have just finished reading Carlos Frias 3rd installment in his five-part series describing his first visit to Cuba last month. Frias is a sports writer for the Palm Beach Post whose parents left Cuba many years ago. The story of the search for his roots is beautifully written and heart-felt. One anecdote got my attention because it's almost verbatim the same one that Val posted here a couple of months ago. Writing about his aunt, who was a teacher in Cuba who lost her job in 1965 because she applied for an exit visa (but never left) Frias says:

Teaching was her life. When she saw the textbooks, the syllabus that she would have to teach, she registered to leave. One of her colleagues had been told to teach her kindergartners about religion. Close your eyes and pray for food, the teacher told them, and when they opened their eyes, of course, there was no food. The next day they were told to pray to Fidel for food; that afternoon, a shipment of rations were delivered to town. That is not the kind of teacher she would become.

Of course I believed Val when he posted the anecdote but this should serve as confirmation for those that think we exaggerate, because, of course, all Cubans exaggerate.

And this anecdote reminds me of another that I wanted to post about but forgot to. My father in law has a cousin named Amparo that is a nun. She was born in Cuba but has lived almost her entire life in Spain except when she was assigned to foreign countries by her order. In 1998 I met her for the first time in Rome when my wife Ana and I were there during our honeymoon. She arranged for us to sit up front along with the other Sposi Novella at the Pope's audience which I will never forget.

Anyway Amparo is in town on vacation and the other night we got to talking about Cuba. You see, several years ago she was assigned by her order to go to Cuba where she lived and worked for 2 years. She told me a story about a parishioner that had a son. In Cuban schools they weigh and measure the children monthly. This particular parishioner's son was not gaining weight so they alloted her some extra food. The following month the boy still had not gained weight. The boy's mother explained that she had given the boy the extra food but that it was not enough. Then they asked her: "Don't you have any family outside the country that could send you money to buy more food?" The parishioner responded: "I have a brother outside but when he left I did as I was intructed by the Revolution. I threw eggs at him, I called him a worm, I ostracized him. How can I now ask him for money?"

Of course the woman had lied about how she treated her brother and her relationship with him but she made a convincingly argument that was not lost on her audience. She pointed out the absurdity of the Cuban government and the castro regime.

A few questions...

We've heard the justifications before. We've heard statistics, of dubious merit, relating to life expectancy and literacy. We've heard about the "miracle" of Cuban health care. Great, let's take all of those things to be true for one minute ask ourselves some logical questions:

If things are so great in Cuba

Why is the only media permitted on the island of a government/communist party nature?

Why is internet access restricted and censored for normal Cubans?

Why aren't foreigners and Cubans allowed to mingle freely?

Why are there no political parties in Cuba other than the communist party?

Why aren't there presidential elections?

Why do people risk their lives to leave the country in droves?

Why is there a lottery for US visas?

Why does it bother the Cuban government so much that there is news ticker in the US Interests section?

Why does the dropping of pamphlets of differing points of view amount to a capital offense?

The answer, for anyone with two brain cells to rub together, to these questions is simple. The current system of government in Cuba is a fraud of the greatest magnitude. It can not win a real debate in the so-called battle of ideas. If it could then they would encourage the debate instead of stifling it.

Every day the international news media expects us to believe that Fidel Castro has been in power for 47 years because that's exactly what Cubans want. Even FDR, one of America's greatest presidents, wore out his welcome and his four terms resulted in a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms.

They expect us to believe that there is nobody in Cuba that disagrees with the government and that its the US that stifles dissent even though in our country you can pitch a tent across from the White House and say whatever you want. You can even buy a parcel of land near the president's home and hold as many protests as you want. But everyone in Cuba is perfectly happy?

The fact is that the media in this country thinks we are fools. And truth be told many among us are fools as judging by some of the emails and comments I get regularly.

fidel castro is a coward. He knows he isn't popular. That's why he must keep the people of his island on an information island. That's why he can't allow people to think for one minute that they have A RIGHT to disagree with ANYTHING. That's why he can't allow any new ideas to take root.

It's time for everyone who is reading this to take action by writing/emailing/calling the news media and demand that they cover Cuba and repression and the opposition with as much fervor, skepticism inquisitiveness as they cover other issues.

"Cuba Countdown"

The American Journalism Review offers an inside look at the scramble to provide coverage for the story in Cuba when the news broke of castro's illness and transfer of power, as well as an overview of the historical relationship between the press and castro's Cuba.

An excerpt detailing the Miami Herald's reaction:

The first week after Castro handed power to his brother, a good chunk of the Miami Herald newsroom staff was dedicated to the story. "This is definitely the top story to the Miami Herald," says Juan Tamayo, the paper's chief of correspondents.

The Herald sent in staffers without visas, something the paper hasn't hesitated to do in the past on stories it felt it needed to cover – which means lots of stories for a paper based in an area that is home to more than 1 million Cubans, living a mere 90 miles from their homeland.

The strategy has been generally successful, at least in terms of getting people onto the island. "We've gotten in, I would say, probably most of the people that we sent, a very high percentage that we sent," Tamayo says, "but I think that we all understand that sending people in sort of under the radar is a limited reporting possibility. If you have to be continually worried about ducking the state security apparatus, it's very difficult." This time, one Herald reporter was stopped at the Havana airport and sent back to Panama.

Relations between the Cuban government and the Herald – and particularly its sister paper, El Nuevo Herald – have long been touchier than those of any other news outlet in the country. The paper has been granted visas; Tamayo says he's been to Cuba legally 20 to 30 times himself. A columnist traveled on a visa in 2004, but the last reporter was legitimately there in 2000 or 2001.

"I think the dynamics going both ways don't lend themselves to good understanding," Tamayo says. "As far as they're concerned, we're not an independent newspaper; we're just part of the Cuban mafia here. For our part, our coverage of Cuba has to be intensive and absolutely correct. We cannot afford to leave things out."

Tamayo compares covering Cuba at a distance to the old days of being a China-watcher in Hong Kong or a Kremlin-watcher in Washington. It's frustrating, he says, but also gives the Herald an advantage. "To be honest with you, people who do have visas, you know the Cubans are very tough on those visas," he says. "If you write almost anything that they do not like, they likely will not give you another visa... Unless that reporter is willing to forgo all future access to the island..they're going to be pretty careful in what they write." He cites two examples of stories the Herald broke before others on the island reported them: that the military was being mobilized after Castro ceded power, and that, in 1997, there were a string of terrorist bombings in Cuba.

Read the whole article here.

Tuesday open thread (Bubba is a liar)

Our esteemed editor-in-chief is in Washington, D.C. today. Let's continue the fun we had yesterday (thanks, Jane!) and do Part 2 of the Bubba saga with this story. It seems that Clinton -- gasp! -- lied in his interview with Chris Wallace. Check out the smack-down at HotAir.com where they have around-up of the lies. Here's a story from the New York Post on the response from The Wihite House:

RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.

At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

• On Iran: "There isn't a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat."
• On Iraq: "You're never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don't have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that's what Iraq represents."
• On Pakistan: "The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population."
• On the Middle East conflict: "It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors."
• On the Far East: "I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations."

In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.

"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

"I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way," Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements. [Emphasis added]

Why is Apartheid Acceptable in Cuba?

I remember when no decent person would even consider of traveling to South Africa under apartheid, so heinous was that policy. Meanwhile, people from all around the world flock to Cuba, and as abhorrent as it is, it's easy to label the white tourists as racists, they must be, how else could they turn a blind eye to such obvious apartheid?

I have to tell you, other than fidel worship, I'm at a loss to explain this from AllAfrica:

Overt Racism Gives Cuban Ideal a Sinister Hue

By Jacob Dlamini
Johannesburg

I HAVE lived in the US on and off for the past three years and have yet to experience racial profiling, or what people of colour in America know as walking/driving/breathing while black. I spent three weeks in Cuba in 2000, and was subjected to racial profiling five times -- all in one day.

I am sure, then, that the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) -- who swear by Cuba and all it stands for -- will understand why a leftist like me is not as enthusiastic as they are about that socialist island. I had my love of Cuba mugged out of me by racism.

Racial profiling, for those who have not heard of it, is a phenomenon whereby people get stopped by the police for looking, well, black and therefore, in the minds of the police doing the profiling, suspicious.

You could be driving down a busy highway, walking through a shopping mall, or just taking a walk through your neighbourhood. You only have to be or look black to qualify for racial profiling.

My experience of racial profiling in Cuba came on the last day of what had been a wonderful holiday in which my girlfriend and I had travelled around the south in Santiago de Cuba, taking in the island's majestic tobacco fields and pub crawling through the capital Havana's districts.

We had decided to take it easy for the last week, and had moved to a small town just outside Havana called Guanabo. The town had better beaches than Havana and, what's more, these were not the property of some hotel chain, meaning they were open to everyone, including ordinary Cubans.

My girlfriend was returning directly to SA and left early, while I was flying back to school in the US, and had to take a midnight flight. With nothing to do but eat, read and do some sightseeing (again) in a town I had come to know fairly well, I decided to rather take a long leisurely walk up and down the beach.

I had been walking for about 10 minutes when two policemen stationed at the beach motioned for me to come over to them. Thinking they were being friendly and wanted to chat with a tourist, I went over. The one who looked as though he was in charge said something in Spanish. The only word I caught out was documento. "It's at home," I said. They quickly realised I wasn't local, and let me go. I continued with my walk.

It happened again about half-an-hour later, only with a different set of policemen. Them: "Documento?" Me: a shrug and a point in the direction of where I was staying. They let me go. I was bemused and, being in holiday mode, slow on the uptake.

I was not amused the third time it happened. I was not the only tourist on the beach, and there were enough of us to keep the cops busy. But I was the only dark-skinned person there. I asked the third set why they were stopping me and demanding to see my documento. One of them just shrugged his shoulders and rubbed his left index finger against his right arm as if to say it was just a colour thing. Nothing personal. I moved on.

By the fourth time, I was in a foul mood, said something about fascismo and pointed at the two Italian men who happened to be walking past us just then, asking why the police were not stopping them and demanding to see their papers.

I did not even stop for the fifth set of cops and told them to their faces to f**k off! By the way, the 10 or so policemen I dealt with that day were either AfroCubans or Cubans of mixed descent.

Then I started thinking about how all the prostitutes seemed to be young black women and men; how all the jobs in the tourism industry -- from the state-owned taxis to the hotel receptions -- seemed to be held by only white or very light-skinned Cubans; how on the few occasions that I managed to watch Cuban television, there were no black Cubans on TV. Except once, and he was only part of a band.

You might ask why anyone would want to visit an island that quarantines people with HIV/AIDS, treats its gay and lesbian citizens like criminals, and dishes out passports the same way a parent gives out candy to an obedient child -- be nice and you will be handsomely rewarded with a pack of sweets.

But Cuba is about more than just tourism for many of us. It helped liberate southern Africa and offered, for a time, a way of looking at the current world and imagining a different one. That is why South Africans continue to visit it.

I have told this story numerous times over the past five years and people always ask the inevitable question: would I recommend Cuba as a tourist destination? My answer is always yes. Just don't go there expecting a socialist haven where solidarity reigns supreme.

Monday open thread (Bubba unleashed)

Our esteemed editor is traveling today and tomorrow to our nation's capital. Use this post to add anything you'd like to our daily discussion. Let me start it off with this, a thing of beauty seeing the former perjurer-in-chief get so defensive about his failures.

Former President Bill Clinton Defends Handling of Usama bin Laden in Combative FNC Interview

Monday , September 25, 2006

NEW YORK — Former President Bill Clinton accused Chris Wallace of carrying out "a conservative hit job" on him after the "FOX News Sunday" host asked him about his administration's handling of the growing Al Qaeda threat in an interview.

The interview, taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference in New York, got heated after Wallace asked why Clinton didn't "do more to put Bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business" when he was in office.

A visibly agitated Clinton chided Wallace for ambushing him with questions about his anti-terrorism policy when Clinton wanted to talk about the Global Initiative project, which looks to create movement on issues including poverty, disease and climate change.

"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because [News Corp. Chairman] Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change," Clinton said. "You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care."

When Wallace offered to return the conversation to Clinton's philanthropic efforts, the former president wanted to continue talking about terrorism and recent criticisms that his administration was weak on terror.

• Transcript: Former President Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday'

"There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression," Clinton said.

Clinton pointed the finger at Republican factions in Congress and Pentagon for stymieing his anti-terrorism efforts.

"All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office," Clinton said. "All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough, said I did too much — same people."

Right-wing factions, Clinton said, are trying to rewrite history to cover up their failing to focus on Al Qaeda when President Bush took office in 2001.

"So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted," Clinton said. "So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."

Clinton was referring to Richard Clarke, who provided national security advice to four presidents as a member of the Senior Executive Service from 1973 to 2003. Clarke is a vocal Bush administration critic whose 2004 book, "Against All Enemies," blasted the White House's focus on Iraq instead of Afghanistan in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Clinton vigorously defended his efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, saying he authorized the CIA to assassinate him and even contracted with other parties to kill him.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said. "I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

Clinton's combativeness fueled firestorms on liberal political blogs like The DailyKos and ThinkProgress. A clip promoting the segment from Friday night's "Special Report" was viewed nearly 900,000 times on video-sharing Web site YouTube, making it the most viewed video of the weekend.

Wallace told the Associated Press in a telephone interview he was surprised by the former presidents strong reaction to his questions.

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said.

I saw the entire interview and the remaining commentary on Fox News Sunday. It is telling that he would get so prickly (an appropriate root word for Bill Clinton) about this. Read a partial transcript below the fold.

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" CHRIS WALLACE: This week [President William Jefferson Clinton] hosted his second annual Global Initiative forum in New York. More than $7 billion was pledged to tackle some of the worst problems in developing countries, such as poverty, disease and climate change.

As part of the conference, Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "FOX News Sunday." The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

WALLACE: Mr. President, welcome to "FOX News Sunday."

BILL CLINTON: Thanks.

WALLACE: In a recent issue of the New Yorker you say, quote, "I'm 60 years old and I damn near died, and I'm worried about how many lives I can save before I do die."

Is that what drives you in your effort to help in these developing countries?

CLINTON: Yes, I really — but I don't mean — that sounds sort of morbid when you say it like that. I mean, I actually ...

WALLACE: That's how you said it.

CLINTON: Yes, but the way I said it, the tone in which I said it was actually almost whimsical and humorous. That is, this is what I love to do. It is what I think I should do.

That is, I have had a wonderful life. I got to be president. I got to live the life of my dreams. I dodged a bullet with that heart problem. And I really think I should — I think I owe it to my fellow countrymen and people throughout the world to spend time saving lives, solving problems, helping people see the future.

But as it happens, I love it. I mean, I feel it's a great gift. So, it's a rewarding way to spend my life.

WALLACE: Someone asked you — and I don't want to, again, be too morbid, but this is what you said. He asked you if you could wind up doing more good as a former president than as a president, and you said, "Only if I live a long time."

CLINTON: Yes, that's true.

WALLACE: How do you rate, compare the powers of being in office as president and what you can do out of office as a former president?

CLINTON: Well, when you are president, you can operate on a much broader scope. So, for example, you can simultaneously be trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo and, you know, make peace in the Middle East, pass a budget that gives millions of kids a chance to have afterschool programs and has a huge increase in college aid at home. In other words, you've got a lot of different moving parts, and you can move them all at once.

But you're also more at the mercy of events. That is, President Bush did not run for president to deal with 9/11, but once it happened it wasn't as if he had an option.

Once I looked at the economic — I'll give you a much more mundane example. Once I looked at the economic data, the new data after I won the election, I realized that I would have to work much harder to reduce the deficit, and therefore I would have less money in my first year to invest in things I wanted to invest in.

WALLACE: So what is it that you can do as a former president?

CLINTON: So what you can do as a former president is — you don't have the wide range of power, so you have to concentrate on fewer things. But you are less at the mercy of unfolding events.

So if I say, look, we're going to work on the economic empowerment of poor people, on fighting AIDS and other diseases, on trying to bridge the religious and political differences between people, and on trying to, you know, avoid the worst calamities of climate change and help to revitalize the economy in the process, I can actually do that.

I mean, because tomorrow when I get up, if there's a bad headline in the paper, it's President Bush's responsibility, not mine. That's the joy of being a former president. And it is true that if you live long enough and you really have great discipline in the way you do this, like this CGI, you might be able to affect as many lives, or more, for the good as you did as president.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?

There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...

CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.

WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let's talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.

I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little "Pathway to 9/11," falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.

And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in "Black Hawk down," and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.

OK, now let's look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Usama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93.

WALLACE: I understand, and I ...

CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don't tell me this — you asked me why didn't I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day.

You brought this up, so you'll get an answer, but you can't ...

WALLACE: I'm perfectly happy to.

CLINTON: All right, secondly ...

WALLACE: Bin Laden says ...

CLINTON: Bin Laden may have said ...

WALLACE: ... bin Laden says that it showed the weakness of the United States.

CLINTON: But it would've shown the weakness if we'd left right away, but he wasn't involved in that. That's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out.

He was not a religious fanatic ...

WALLACE: But, Mr. President ...

CLINTON: ... there was no Al Qaeda ...

WALLACE: ... with respect, if I may, instead of going through '93 and ...

CLINTON: No, no. You asked it. You brought it up. You brought it up.

WALLACE: May I ask a general question and then you can answer?

CLINTON: Yes.

WALLACE: The 9/11 Commission, which you've talk about — and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said ...

CLINTON: Yes, what did they say?

WALLACE: ... they said about you and President Bush, and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, but not in the sense of mustering anything like the kind of effort that would be gathered to confront an enemy of the first, second or even third rank."

CLINTON: First of all, that's not true with us and bin Laden.

WALLACE: Well, I'm telling you that's what the 9/11 Commission says.

CLINTON: All right. Let's look at what Richard Clarke said. Do you think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

WALLACE: Yes, I do.

CLINTON: You do, don't you?

WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes, he has a vigorous ...

CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now, but let's look at the facts: He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him.

They downgraded him and the terrorist operation.

Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions — assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden.

WALLACE: But ...

CLINTON: No, wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: ... cruise missiles.

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

The CIA, which was run by George Tenet, that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to, he said, "He did a good job setting up all these counterterrorism things."

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.

But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11.

The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would've had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night.

Even the 9/11 Commission didn't do that. Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I'm asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is ...

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no ...

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?"

I want to know how many you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"

I want to know how many people you asked ...

WALLACE: We asked — we asked ...

CLINTON: I don't ...

WALLACE: Do you ever watch "FOX News Sunday," sir?

CLINTON: I don't believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of ...

CLINTON: You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there's plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change.

And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about — you said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.

WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you'll see half the questions are about that. I didn't think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side.

WALLACE: That's not true. Sir, that is not true.

CLINTON: And Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony...

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No, I want to finish this now.

WALLACE: All right. Well, after you.

CLINTON: All I'm saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaeda existed then. And ...

WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998 ...

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: ... when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about ...

WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was president.

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that's strange.

WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: You can.

WALLACE: I always intended to, sir.

CLINTON: No, you intended, though, to move your bones by doing this first, which is perfectly fine. But I don't mind people asking me — I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours, Chris, and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public, because I thought none of us had been perfect.

But instead of anybody talking about those things, I always get these clever little political yields (ph), where they ask me one-sided questions. And the other guys notice that. And it always comes from one source. And so ...

WALLACE: And ...

CLINTON: And so ...

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what's the source? I mean, you seem upset, and I ...

CLINTON: I am upset because ...

WALLACE: And all I can say is, I'm asking you this in good faith because it's on people's minds, sir. And I wasn't ...

CLINTON: Well, there's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.

This country only has one person who's worked on this terror. From the terrorist incidents under Reagan to the terrorist incidents from 9/11, only one: Richard Clarke.

And all I can say to anybody is, you want to know what we did wrong or right, or anybody else did? Read his book.

The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, "Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was "wag the dog" when he tried to kill him."

My Republican secretary of defense — and I think I'm the only president since World War II to have a secretary of defense of the opposite party — Richard Clarke and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden and came closer, apparently, than anybody has since.

WALLACE: All right.

CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression, when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's findings and you know it's not true. It's just not true.

And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. The same exact crowd.

WALLACE: One of the ...

CLINTON: And so, if you're going to do this, for God's sake, follow the same standards for everybody ...

WALLACE: I think we do, sir.

CLINTON: ... and be flat — and fair.

WALLACE: I think we do. ... One of the main parts of the Global Initiative this year is religion and reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of this century. And his answer is promoting democracy and reform.

Do you think he has that right?

CLINTON: Sure. To advance — to advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely.

I think the question is, what's the best way to do it? I think also the question is, how do you educate people about democracy?

Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there's more than one way to advance democracy.

But do I think, on balance, that in the end, after several bouts with instability — look how long it took us to build a mature democracy. Do I think, on balance, it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure I do. And do I think specifically the president has a right to do it? Sure I do.

But I don't think that's all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us as trying to get a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I think they have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

WALLACE: Last year at this conference, you got $2.5 billion in commitments, pledges. How'd you do this year?

CLINTON: Well, this year we had — we had $7.3 billion, as of this morning.

WALLACE: Excuse me?

CLINTON: $7.3 billion, as of this morning. But $3 billion of that is — now, this is over multi years. These are up to 10-year commitments.

But $3 billion of that came from Richard Branson's commitment to give all of his transportation profits for a decade to clean energy investments. But still, that's — the rest is over $4 billion.

And we will have another 100 commitments come in, maybe more, and we'll probably raise another, I would say, at least another billion dollars, probably, before it's over. We've got a lot of commitments still in process.

WALLACE: When you look at the $3 billion from Branson, plus the billions that Bill Gates is giving in his own program, and now Warren Buffet, what do you make of this new age of philanthropy?

CLINTON: I think that, for one thing, really rich people have always given money away. I mean, you know, they've endowed libraries and things like that.

The unique thing about this age is, first of all, you have a lot of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who are interested in issues at home and around the world that grow out of the nature of the 21st century and its inequalities — the income inequalities, the health-care inequalities, the education inequalities.

And you get a guy like Gates, who built Microsoft, who actually believes that he can help overcome a lot of the health disparities in the world. And that's the first thing.

The second thing that ought to be credited is that there are a lot of people with average incomes who are joining them because of the Internet. Like in the tsunami, for example, we had $1.2 billion given by Americans; 30 percent of our households gave money, over half of them over the Internet.

And then the third thing is you've got all these — in poor countries, you've got all these nongovernmental groups that you can — that a guy like Gates can partner with, along with the governments.

So all these things together mean that people with real money want to give it away in ways that help people that before would've been seen only as the object of government grants or loans.

WALLACE: Let's talk some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say that you are tired of Karl Rove's B.S., although I'm cleaning up what you said.

CLINTON: But I do like the — but I also say I'm not tired of Karl Rove. I don't blame Karl Rove. If you've got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.

WALLACE: So what is the B.S.?

CLINTON: Well, every even-numbered year, right before an election, they come up with some security issue.

In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn't have any way to make us look like we didn't care about terror.

And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed. And they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn't pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren't for it. They just ran that out.

This year, I think they wanted to make the questions of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issues, until John Warner and John McCain and Lindsey Graham got in there. And, as it turned out, there were some Republicans that believed in the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and had some of their own ideas about how best to fight terror.

The Democrats — as long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we have our own approaches — and we may have differences over Iraq — I think we'll do fine in this election.

But even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove's new foray if we just don't make it clear that we, too, care about the security of the country. But we want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven't for four years. We want to intensify our efforts in Afghanistan against bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent.

And then they can all, if they differ on Iraq, they can say whatever they want on Iraq.

But Rove is good. And I honor him. I mean, I will say that. I've always been amused about how good he is, in a way.

But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable: We're going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren't afraid. If they're afraid and we get divided again, then we may only win a few seats.

WALLACE: And the White House, the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?

CLINTON: Of course they do. Of course they do. They want us to be — they want another homeland security deal. And they want to make it about — not about Iraq but about some other security issue, where, if we disagree with them, we are, by definition, imperiling the security of the country.

And it's a big load of hooey. We've got nine Iraq war veterans running for the House seats. We've got President Reagan's secretary of the navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Kurt Weldon in Pennsylvania.

We've got a huge military presence here in this campaign. And we just can't let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box we don't belong in.

That's their job. Their job is to beat us. I like that about Rove. But our job is not to let them get away with it. And if they don't, then we'll do fine.

WALLACE: Mr. President, thank you for one of the more unusual interviews.

CLINTON: Thanks.

One heck of a cartoon

El Mico Putumayo is finally being put in his place with this knock-em-dead political cartoon, one of the most exquisitely terrific cartoons I've ever seen. Who did it? We were looking around for awhile and sure enough, it was our much-admired friends in Peru, who've always had the Venezuelan thug's number. We love the Peruvians!

See this kickass cartoon that beats the crap out of hugo chavez here.

Family or The Revolution

Rick from Stuck on the Palmetto posted a great and revealing article in the Palm Beach Post by Cuban-American sports writer Carlos Frias. Frias writes about his recent visit to Cuba, and the stories are literally heart-breaking. His accounts of going to La Cabaña where his father was jailed for 2 years, visiting an old family friend who also happens to be married to the president of the neighborhood CDR, and his sick feeling upon discovering the reality of life in Cuba are among the best-written pieces I've read on the subject.

I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow breakdown of the article. I only urge everyone to click here and read it and let the words sink in. They speak for themselves.

There's an accompanying slideshow which can be viewed here

A Canadian Smackdown

Received the following via email and had to post it for you all:

Dear Val,

A million hugs for your amazing Babalublog! I only wish I could take it with me to Cuba to let everyone, in their heroic struggle, know how much love and support is out there for them.

In February of this year my essay The Real Cuba appeared in Canada's National Post and you were kind enough to include it on your blog. Did you see the letter to Fidel by Sacha Trudeau in the Toronto Star this August? I won't repeat it here but will paste the brilliant reply from my editor at the National Post, Jonathan Kay.

National Post
August 15, 2006

Sacha's Love Letter

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 rid the world of a political system that slaughtered tens of millions in purges, and sentenced hundreds of millions more to economic slavery. Less consequentially, communism's demise also spared the world of arts and letters one of the most appalling literary tropes known to history: the mythic communist hagiography.

If you've ever travelled to a communist nation, or read its official histories, you will know they run something like this: Great Leader was born a poor villager in the country's heartland. At the age of four, he single-handedly killed a pack of wolves that threatened his town. At the age of eight, he invented a new kind of rifle. At the age of 12, he heroically denounced his own parents as counterrevolutionaries. A prodigious autodidact, Great Leader became an expert in every subject -- agriculture, warfare, economics -- and tirelessly applied his intellect to advance the glorious revolution. And so on.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, this messianic propaganda style has survived in just two places -- North Korea and Cuba. Or so I thought, until I woke up on Sunday and spotted a museum-quality specimen devoted to Fidel Castro on the pages of the Toronto Star. Had I seen it in The Onion, I would have thought it a fine parody. But the persistently earnest author -- none other than Alexandre ("Sacha") Trudeau -- apparently meant every word.

The legacy of Castro is well-summarized in a recent report by Human Rights Watch: "Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his 47th year in power ... continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions [and] mob harassment ... The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law."

But those sticks-in-the-mud at Human Rights Watch apparently don't know the real Fidel. Writing on August 13, Castro's 80th birthday, Sacha lovingly described the kindly attentions Cuba's leader once lavished on his late brother Michel, whom the despot nicknamed "Micha-Miche." When Michael was eight years old, we learn, he complained to his mother that he had fewer friends than his brothers.

Reports Sacha: "My mother told him that, unlike us, he had the greatest friend of all: He had Fidel." Such soothing words. Would that we all had a communist tyrant to call our pal. Sacha's article is full of this sort of maudlin recollection, so much so that one is reminded of the purple love letters Nikolai Bukharin wrote to Stalin from prison in the (vain) hope of winning his freedom. The main difference is that Sacha doesn't have the excuse of imprisonment. He wrote his ode to Cuba's prison-keeper from a nation whose people enjoy freedoms that Cubans can scarcely imagine.

Space forbids a full recitation of Sacha's jaw-droppers, but here are some highlights.
Cuba's Great Leader, we are told, "lives to learn and put his knowledge in the service of the revolution." He is "famous for not sleeping, instead spending the night studying and learning." "His intellect is one of the most broad and complete that can be found." Moreover, Fidel is "a great adventurer," "a great scientific mind," "the most curious man I have ever met," "an expert on genetics, on automobile combustion engines, on stock markets, on everything," not to mention the world's "most audacious and brilliant" leader.

Or, to put it more succinctly, "He is something of a superman" -- a description Sacha justifies with a comic-book propaganda story in which the fat dictator dives 20 metres down into the ocean (without scuba gear!) to collect sea urchins for the Trudeau family's delectation.

Only when we get to the 18th paragraph does Sacha interrupt his sensuous rhapsodies to admit that Cubans "do occasionally complain." But such complaints are akin to "an adolescent [who] might complain about a too strict and demanding father."
In other words, Fidel's single flaw is that he loves too much. If this were all there were to Sacha's article, then it would merely constitute the unintentionally comic ramblings of a son who still believes the Cuban agitprop passed on to him from his departed daddy -- nonsense that even most Cubans stopped believing decades ago. But his Star essay went beyond that, into something much creepier.

I am thinking in particular of these two lines:
"Fidel may seem an anachronism: a visionary statesman in a world where his kind have long since been replaced by mere managers, a 20th-century icon still present in the 21st century."
"With the possible exception of Nelson Mandela, already well into retirement, Fidel is the last of the global patriarchs. Reason, revolution and virtue are becoming more and more distant and abstract concepts."
Since the 1980s, Latin America has undergone a stunning transformation. In the time of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, autocratic police states were the norm, democracy the exception. Now it is the opposite, and only Cuba and Venezuela stand as blots on an otherwise democratic landscape. It is one of the most inspiring political transformations of our time. Yet to Sacha, all of these freely elected leaders are "mere managers." For they lack the "machismo and vigour" that can only emanate from a "revolutionary" regime -- which is to say, a community tyranny.

Throughout the 20th century, there were many other ideologues who preferred "reason, revolution and virtue" to the boring give-and-take of democratic politics and due process. Their ranks included not only murdering despots such as Lenin, Mao and Castro himself, but also starry-eyed fellow travellers and apologists such as Sartre, Fanon and Trudeau pere. Thankfully, the failure of the Soviet experiment has driven both tribes into history's dustbin.

Sacha is a rare exception. Yet from the casual way he throws out his nauseating obsequies, he doesn't appear to understand just how historically discredited his message has become. He is more than naive -- he is ignorant.

The saddest part of it is that Sacha is not an insubstantial intellect: In recent years, he has become a respected journalist, civil libertarian and activist. But there are limits to what even an accomplished person may say and still be taken seriously.

What Sacha has written here is so ludicrous that it puts into question everything he's said or will say. Now that he's written this glowing tribute to a dictator with blood on his hands, for instance, why should we believe his repeated claims that this or that Arab terrorism suspect is innocent? Why should we believe his reporting from Iraq, for that matter? If the romantic glory of "revolution" is all that matters in Sacha's political universe, surely jihadis are "supermen," too, no?

Sacha is still a young man -- perhaps young enough to rebound from this blunder if he's more careful with his words. But for that to happen, the naive affection for Fidel bequeathed to him by his father should become the love that dare not speak its name.

- Jonathan Kay is Managing Editor for Comment at the National Post.

Thanks again, Val, for keeping it all together so beautifully.

Sincerely,

Yedi

Fontova Slaps the Venezuelan Monkey

And what an artful slap it is, 'tis a thing of beauty, every word.

From Human Events:

Hugo Chavez the Chump? by Humberto Fontova

Whoever doubts Fidel Castro's demise -- political if not physical -- need only look at Hugo Chavez recent monkeyshines at the United Nations. If Castro is sentient he's furious. The organ grinder gets laid up, the leash comes off and in no time the monkey makes a mess of things. Chavez even provoked harsh words from Charlie Rangel!

In Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Fidel Castro has his main (of many) booster in the U.S. legislature. Sure, the accolades from Harry Belafonte, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Norman Mailer, Ted Turner, Dan Rather, etc. are all nice. But Charlie Rangel provides more than mere atta-boys. He's also there to champion any and all legislation against the so-called embargo, to facilitate Elian's return, to rally votes against aid to the Contras and to bear hug Fidel during his last visit to Harlem. Best of all, he's poised to wrangle a seat in the House Ways and Means Committee, where his influence over international trade will be greatly enhanced.

In Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro has his main financial booster. Sure, the accolades from Britain's Galloway, Spain's Zapatero, Argentina's Kirchner are all nice. But given recent oil prices, the 100,000 daily barrels of essentially free oil from Chavez actually surpasses in value the daily subsidies from Cuba's former Soviet patrons. Sitting atop all that oil, Hugo is positioned to put his money where his anti-Yankee and pro-Cuba mouth is.

So a falling out between these two Cuba friends and benefactors cannot help the Castroite cause -- and would have never come to pass if Castro was still in a position to mentor his Venezuelan suitor. During his General Assembly rant, Chavez had the right idea by holding up Noam Chomsky's book. "That's the beauty of this type of thing, Hugo," a healthy Castro would have advised. "So many American leftists, scoundrels and fools are so eager to echo our ravings that there's absolutely no need for us to mouth them ourselves, you idiot! From Susan Sontag to Saul Landau and from Frank Manckiewics to Michael Moore I've relied on such people for decades! Now look what you've done! Prominent Democrats -- my historic allies -- from Rangel to Pelosi are speaking against you! Democrats saved me in the nick of time at Bay of Pigs. Democrats then provided my Mutually-Assured-Protection with the Kennedy-Khruschev deal. Democrats fought tooth and nail against help to the Nicaraguan Contras. Democrats returned Elian. Democrats (and farm state Republicans) whittled away the embargo. It takes a lot to get Democrats riled against a Latin leftist -- and here you've managed it, you idiot!"

Chavez might have taken a cue from the Cuban Maestro's own visit in 1995 to New York (a city he twice tried to incinerate) for the UN's 50th anniversary festivities. "The Toast of Manhattan!" crowed Time magazine about Castro's reception by the General Assembly and later by Manhattan's Beautiful People.

"The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan!" read a Newsweek story that week, referring to the social swirl that engulfed Castro. After Castro's whooping, hollering, foot-stomping ovation in the General Assembly, he was feted by the New York's best and brightest, hob-knobbing with dozens of Manhattan's glitterati, pundits and power brokers. First, there was dinner at the Council of Foreign Relations. After holding court there for a rapt David Rockefeller along with Robert McNamara, Dwayne Andreas and Random House's Harold Evans, Castro flashed over to Mort Zuckerman 5th Avenue pad, where a throng of Beltway glitterati, including a breathless Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw and Barbara Walters all jostled for brief tryst, cooing and gurgling to Castro’s every comment. All clamored for autographs and photo-ops. Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass-killer's presence that she rushed up, broke into that toothy smile of hers, wrapped her arms around Castro and smooched him warmly on the cheek.

"You people are the cream of the crop!" beamed the bearded Cuban man of the people to the smiling throng that surrounded him.

"Hear-hear!" chirped the delighted guests while tinkling their wine glasses in appreciation and glee.

And the mass-murderer had barely scratched the surface of his fan club. According to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, on that visit, Castro received 250 dinner invitations from Manhattan celebrities and power-brokers.

Fidel's reception at the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000 was no less rapturous. Afterwards he made his way to Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church where pastor Calvin Butts gushed: "It is in our tradition to welcome all who are visionaries, revolutionaries and who seek the liberation of all people. God Bless you, Fidel!"

"The mainly African-American audience, which included New York Democratic representatives Charles Rangel and Nydia Velasquez, enthusiastically greeted the Communist leader with a ten-minute standing ovation." reported People's Weekly World. “‘Chants of Cuba, SI! Embargo NO! resounded from the rafters and sent a strong message of protest to New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani."

Harlem's delirious ovation for the incarcerator of the century's longest-suffering black political prisoner rose to the level of an earthquake -- to a hurricane. The very walls and rafters shook with shrieks of "FIDEL! VIVA FIDEL!!" Elombe Brathe, head of the "Patrice Lumumba Coalition" and chair for the meeting, asked the audience, "Who would you rather come to Harlem? Fidel or Giuliani?"

"FIDEL!" They erupted. "FIDEL! VIVA FIDEL!" Then with Congressperson Maxine Waters looking on in rapture, Charlie Rangel waddled up to the podium beside the Great One. Fidel -- oomph! -- finally caught his breath, beamed and returned the rotund senator's mighty bear hug.

Chavez, scurrying from a hostile New York with Rangel's carping ringing in his ears, can only read these stories and weep. For simply saying the UN "smelt of sulphur," Chavez got censured by New Yorkers. After trying (twice) to make the entire city smell of charred flesh, his former mentor, Fidel Castro, got a reception to shame Simon and Garfunkel's in Central Park.

Actually, Hugo Chavez might be more than a blustering buffoon. Some secret meetings at last week's Non- Aligned Conference in Havana might point to Chavez in a role quite similar to his host and mentor's in October 1962. Israel's intelligence webzine Debkafile has received numerous awards including Forbes "Best of The Web" award. Last week they reported that during the Non-Aligned Conference, "Iranian, Cuban and Venezuelan teams were putting their heads together on ways of translating their leaders' hostile rhetoric and slogans into effective war action against the United States... The Iranian and Venezuelan teams then moved their talks to Caracas where Ahmadinejad continued his talks with Chavez on Sept 17 and 18."

Castro started chumming up with Iran from the day of the embassy take-over in 1979. "Together Iran and Cuba can bring America to her knees!" raved Castro to a thunderous ovation at Tehran University in August 2001. The following year he built Iran a Biotechnology plant.

"Iran's Islamic revolutionary leaders have maintained warm ties of cooperation and mutual assistance with Castro's Cuba since they came to power in Tehran in 1979," reports DEBKA. "Chavez ...is just as anti-American but also rated by Tehran an easier mark.....our Iranian sources report that Ahmadinejad also talked persuasively to Chavez about making a show of deploying a few Iranian-made 2,000-km range Shahab-3 missiles -- first in Venezuela then in Cuba -- as a menace to the United States."

"The three-cornered meeting in Havana between the Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro at the beginning of the week reached a number of decisions in principle although they remain to be fleshed out with operational details."

But the DEBKA report continues: "The three-way talks have thus far yielded a solid decision for Iranian intelligence agents, some of them sabotage specialists, to be sent soon to Cuba and Venezuela. They will operate in the guise of road network and industrial development experts. Their real mission will be to conduct surveys on the practicability of using Cuba and Venezuela as bases for subversive activities against the United States and other parts of Latin America."

There's a Republican in the White House, so this missile plan may remain "in principle," indefinitely. And regarding Cuba "as a base for subversive activity against the U.S. and Latin America"? Since they specialize in mideast intelligence, DEBKAfile might be forgiven for overlooking that Cuba has been just such a base since January 1959.

Happy Happy, Joy Joy!

I figured that since a certain someone took umbrage with the fact that I posted an entry where - the nerve! - I voiced certain frustrations here on my own blog that I began, run and maintain, I would heed this person's advice and post a happy happy joy joy entry. So here it is in all it's happy happy joy joy splendor.

I just got off the phone with someone that called me randomnly and gave me a free one month vacation around the world, all expenses paid. He spoke to my boss and my boss said he was totally cool with it and not only did he say it was cool to take a month off, but he said he'd pay for a second month of vacationing for me and the Mrs. Plus, as an added bonus, Im getting a raise. My salary is now doubled and I only have to work half the hours.

Happy Happy Joy Joy!

As Im walking to my truck today when leaving the office I know for sure Im going to find tomorrow's winning Lotto ticket right there next to my car. And, not only that, it will be the super double secret mega Lotto ticket by which the winnings will be quadrupled, tax free, and in instant cash. Plus, a handsome faux leather wallet to keep said cash in!

Happy Happy Joy Joy!

My little 92 Isuzu pick up truck will, upon my turning the ignition, transform itself into a super colossal Italian Sports Car SUV pick up truck that runs on oxygen, has no exhaust and is self cleaning and will never require a trip to the mechanic. It drives itself, and comes complete with an anti-traffic hover system and also transforms into a 58 foot luxury yacht complete with all fishing accutrements with the flip of a switch. Plus, it has a fancy copper expresso and capuccino maker built in, self frothing, with real sugar that wont hurt