Okay, so what is the textbook, classic example everyone thinks of first when they think of a US-sponsored coup in Latin America to install a murderous dictatorial regime?

Hint: Castro told Chavez not to become the assassinated President of this country on the phone during the April 2002 coup in Venezuela.

Hint #2: Kissinger said, about this country: "I don't see why we have to sit back and let a country go communist just because of the irresponsibility of its own people."

Answer? The same country that is sending more troops to help the US with its post-coup occupation of Haiti, of course!

That ought to come as a shocker. It seems that Bush has endorsed Sharon's plans for the unilateral destruction -- oops, I meant starvation -- oops, I meant withdrawal -- of Gaza. He has also said that Palestinian refugees ought to forget about the right of return, and he has said nothing about the settlements on the West Bank. Or the bombings. Or the starvation. Or the closures. But then, how could he, when he's applying these very techniques in Iraq?

Check out this press release from Latortue, Haiti's new democratically-paramilitary-coup-installed leader who is presiding over a major massacre and occupation right now. It comes from his meeting with Powell and is published (where else?) on the State Department's website.

Talk about a 'feeler'. So various outlets are saying that the US is vowing to capture or kill Moqtada as-Sadr. Someone even used the famous 'dead or alive' phrase, last used for Osama bin Laden. I'm a little surprised. I would have thought they would have wanted to build him up into another famous Arab villain and make the 'fiery cleric's' face known all over the country, stoking the racism that has played such a useful role in US war plans all over the world for a little longer.

It's another page out of the Israeli handbook. I'm sure you've all read Fisk's latest:

Some stuff that came through a little while ago. There is a trial in process of a fellow called Montesinos. He's your friendly neighbourhood arms dealer, with a long resume of CIA work, as well as work for the notorious Peruvian democrat Alberto Fujimori. Obviously his work with the CIA involved providing weapons to illegal armed groups with the purpose of destroying social movements in Latin America.

The odd thing is, however, that he's on trial in Peru right now for an arms deal -- selling 10,000 AK-47 rifles to FARC -- the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Why would someone with a CIA resume sell weapons to FARC? That's actually the basis of his plea for innocence: "I never sell to the left," he's said. As for the CIA, they say the matter is before the courts. One thing is for sure: this is not the whole story.

In other shady dealings:

In a previous post, I lamented the concept of the 'Anti-Aristide, Anti-Occupation' left. My principal argument was that Aristide was really besides the point. He was not the target of the coup: it was the Haitian people, the democratic process, and the population itself that was. But I've recently thought of something else.

States rarely commit atrocities without putting out 'feelers' to see how they are going to go over. Israel, for example, has been putting out 'feelers' about assassinating Yasser Arafat for quite some time. The US has been putting out 'feelers' about attacking Syria and Iran since the invasion of Iraq. Likewise, plenty of 'feelers' are going out about getting Colombia to attack Venezuela. These things are tests: if the reaction suggests they can get away with it, they go for it.

So it is with Fallujah (See Andrea Schmidt's latest report here). There is a note that came over the networks by various international organizations yesterday, with new estimates of the magnitude of the atrocity: "470 killed. 1200 injured, of which 243 are women and 200 are children. This is the first, underestimated body count from Falluja." (The entire note is reproduced below).

This should actually be the sort of thing that our movement is good at: halting a dramatic massacre in progress against a civilian population, done directly by us, unfolding as we speak. And there have been emergency demonstrations and pickets all over North America. It is a major slaughter that will take place if the public response is inadequate. Here is the call for solidarity in its entirety:

I have to admit that I have a soft spot for genuine liberals that is probably not entirely rational. One Canadian writer who falls into this category for me is John Ralston Saul, the husband of Canada's governor general, Adrienne Clarkson. I have read all his books, and he strikes me as someone who really knows a lot more than he says. It might not be the case: I just like to think that he's secretly a radical, even though he makes all kinds of inconsistent arguments (in Voltaire's Bastards, for example, he says the trouble with the US methods of waging war is that they don't work, because generalship wins battles not hardware. That might be true, but the big problem with US methods of waging war are the ends of those wars and the slaughter they bring). Anyway, he's recently published an article proclaiming the death of globalization...

So, April 9 is the day they took down the statue in Baghdad. They are commemorating it by taking down stickers of Moqtada as-Sadr, and they've apparently let up a little on the slaughter in Fallujah, though not elsewhere.

I thought I'd publish my correspondence with Manji in parts, but now I just want to get it over with. Spending more time on someone so far beneath contempt is unjustifiable when this morning's CBC report said there have been 280 Iraqis killed in Fallujah alone since Sunday. Western media deflate Iraqi casualties; there are more cities that the Americans are attacking; these numbers come from hospital estimates and it is guaranteed that not everyone is getting to the hospitals; in other words, there is a major massacre unfolding here. Manji is an unaffordable diversion. So, I'll publish the entire correspondence below, and have done.