" RENE GARCIA PREVAL JUST WON THE MANFOUBEN AWARDS"

We are not going to miss Preval . In 2006 the people decided again to vote Preval   not because he was a good president but because they did not trust nobody else . There was Becker , Evens Paul ,  a Manigat as usual  , and many more like Simeus who were trying to get a piece of the cake. But the people decided again to go with Preval because he is one of the rare president if not the only one who did his five years term with  " no coup d'etat"  , or civil war . The Haitian people are not used to that .  I m not going to say that Preval is a thief even though he tried to steal the 2010 election to his baby Jude . But during his first term he came with his famous quote to  show or " I DON'T CARE " he was for the Haitian people . " NAGE POUN SOTI " (swim to save  your life ) meaning that he could not do anything for the people when the economy went down and when the Haitian people were hungry . When the people were telling him about the price of the rice that was to high , he answered : " hey people , I  paid it the same price " we knew that Preval but you were making presidential money .  Or again when the people were mad and they said they were going to take the street against the government , he answered : " Come get me , I  will take the street with you " , mocking the people . 

Today I decided to give to Preval the Manfouben awards just because  I think he is a MANFOUBEN 

proof 

ti rene dress code was suits : they sell them anba lavil for cheap

proof : ti rene wait for your turn 

MANFOUBEN=NEGLIGENT . and because of his poor answer after the earthquake of 2010 . 

and because of many and many more stuff not mentioning the alcohol part because it is his private life . I WANT TO SAY MR PREVAL , TIME FOR YOU TO GO AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO MISS YOU . 

Why does US fear Aristide' s return in Haiti ?

   SUCCESSIVE administrations in Washington have demonstrated an obsession with the presence in Haiti of Jean Bertrand Aristide — whether or not he is functioning as president of that Caribbean nation that languishes in a state of permanent crisis.

Latest example is the unsolicited advice publicly given by the Hillary Clinton-led US State Department that the former popular Roman Catholic priest of the poor, turned politician, should not return to his homeland before this coming Sunday's scheduled second round presidential run-off.

This is quite baffling. What gives the government of President Barack Obama the right — legal or moral — to publicly and presumably privately as well, request him to delay his planned imminent return to his homeland from exile in South Africa?      

Twice elected to the presidency and twice ousted from power in mid-term, with the US Central Intelligence Agency as an accomplice with corrupt Haitian political and military leaders, Aristide was restored to power in 1994, with the use of military force by President Bill Clinton, who has continued to distinguish himself as a stout "friend'' of the people of Haiti.

By 2004, amid orchestrated domestic political turmoil, the Washington administration of President George W Bush was to play a leading role, along with France, in ousting President Aristide from power, against the protestations from the governments of the Caribbean community of which Haiti is a member state.

Aristide was flown into exile on a US military aircraft and following a brief period of political asylum in Jamaica, South Africa became the place of choice for his almost seven years in exile.

When the unprecedented earthquake-triggered devastation of Haiti occurred in January last year, Aristide was lamenting his absence from Haiti and has shown an interest to be back among "my fellow Haitians".

Following the surprise return to the country of ex-dictator Jean Claude Duvalier, Aristide applied for a new Haitian passport and signalled plans to return soon. However, once the passport was delivered he started to experience unexplained complications in official arrangements, including security, to return home.

He felt obliged that he had no interest in becoming involved in the  ongoing political squabbles over the controversial outcome of last November's parliamentary elections which led to violent demonstrations and a necessary second round presidential run-off in the face of documented examples of electoral rigging

Early last month, then US State Department spokesman, Philip Crowley, was to go public with a claim that Aristide's return to Haiti before the second round presidential run-off "would be an unfortunate distraction and the two participating candidates (Mirlande Manigat and Michel Martelly) should be the focus at this time…"

That contention provoked an immediate protest demonstration from Haitians, including militant activists of Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas  party, who cried "no Aristide, no second round (election)…"

As if bent on pursuing a course of action to deter Aristide — a former legitimate Haitian president forced out of office by the US and allies like France — from returning home before this Sunday's run-off presidential pol — a new State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, has emerged to sound a warning with an even more disturbing overtone.

For Toner, Aristide's return before Sunday's decisive vote, "can only be seen as a conscious choice to impact Haiti's elections", and that Washington was also seeking the cooperation of the South African government to persuade the former president from returning before the March 20 poll.

Why this fear of Aristide's presence at this time?

For seven years Aristide has been in exile. During that period no credible information was provided by either governments in Port-au-Prince or administrations in Washington (Republican or Democrat), that he has a political agenda to disturb the peace (sic) in Haiti, affect the conduct of the presidential run-off and create more problems for that poor nation of endless miseries.

The governments of Caricom should speak, unequivocally, in one voice, on the fundamental right of the former president of Haiti to return to his homeland, whenever he so determines, and that this should not be left to the whims and fancies of a foreign government, in this case one, ironically, headed by President Barack Obama.

It is quite understandable for the Joint Organisation of American States (OAS) and Caricom Mission  in Haiti to have made their public appeal on Monday for a peaceful atmosphere to prevail for Sunday's final presidential run-off, and to have again denounced the political violence that had marred the first-round campaign of last November's parliamentary and presidential poll.

Nevertheless, it is quite strange that Caricom has refrained from commenting on the repeated public calls for Aristide to stay away from Haiti until after Sunday's second round run-off between the 70-year-old former first lady Manigat and 50-year-old pop singer Martelly.

For that matter, why the silence of outgoing Haitian President Rene Preval himself?

Having agreed to Aristide being given the new passport he required, and the former dictator Jean Claude Duvalier, is in Haiti and soon to face court trials for crimes committed, why not a statement of clarification on Aristide's right to return to his homeland, whenever he chooses?

By
Rickey Singh
Story Created:
           Mar 16, 2011 at 12:42 AM ECT 
Story Updated:
Mar 16, 2011 at 12:42 AM ECT

Hillary Clinton won't serve a second term as secretary of State

Posted by Amy Davidson
“No,” “No,” “No,” “No”: those were Hillary Clinton’s full answers to four questions from Wolf Blitzer. He had asked, “If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?” And then, after the first no, if she’d like to be Secretary of Defense, Vice-President, or President of the United States. (How about a ballerina, a firefighter, or an astronaut?) She had a longer response when he asked her why not, though it wasn’t very responsive—it was mostly about how much fun it had been to be Secretary of State. And though she said, after a followup, that she was “moving on” from thoughts of the Presidency, she also used the slightly avoidant “no intention or any idea even of running again.” And where would she get an idea like that?
There was another, questionable no from Clinton today, this one concerning the case of Raymond Davis. “The United States did not pay any compensation,” Clinton said, according to Reuters. Well, but someone did: about two million three hundred thousand dollars to the families of two men Davis shot and killed on the streets of Lahore in what he claimed was self defense, and a third who was killed when a car Davis called for from our consulate slammed through traffic. (I’ve written about Davis, and about the Times’s strange explanation of its decision not to report on his connections to the C.I.A.) Maybe Clinton’s denial is a matter of verb tenses—“did not pay,” as opposed to “is not paying.” (“We expect to receive a bill,” an American official told the Washington Post.) Our government had been trying to assert diplomatic immunity on Davis’s behalf, enraging many people in Pakistan. Pakistani law allows judges to issue a pardon, however, if the family of a victim attests that it has received compensation, and is satisfied. (The provision has its basis in Sharia law; Eric Lach, at TPM, found some irony there.) That is what happened today. Davis is free, Pakistan put its judicial machinery through some formal motions, and it never got to the point where the Pakistani courts had to make a call on the diplomatic-immunity question. But you can’t really call it elegant. There were protests in Lahore when the news came out, and it leaves untouched the larger questions of impunity and covert operations in Pakistan. There are also questions about the pressure the families had on them to settle. A lawyer who had been representing them said that he was held in a room at the courthouse for a number of hours and not allowed to talk to them while the deal was being struck. One of the relatives who won’t be sharing the money is the eighteen-year-old widow of one of the dead men; she is dead, too, now, after killing herself by swallowing rat poison. Was there justice for her? Maybe Hillary Clinton has an answer.