Elections

[ARR]

http://www.putin.ru/posters/6.jpg

 

PUTIN CONGRATULATED KOCHARIAN ON REELECTION AS ARMENIAN PRESIDENT

- March 07, 2003 13:48

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Russian president Vladimir Putin congratulated Robert Kocharian on being reelected as the president of Armenia. Putin's telegram says, "I am frankly pleased to congratulate you on your victory at the presidential elections of the Republic of Armenia and to wish you further progress in holding the high state office. Your success at the elections again confirmed the Armenian people's devotion to the line of policy of holding democratic and market changes in the country, neighborly relations and mutually favorable cooperation. Russia highlights your personal contribution to the progressive enlargement of the traditionally friendly and allied Russian-Armenian relations. I am sure that our common course for strengthening bilateral strategic partnership will be developed further and will let make the sister nations of our countries even closer." Russia is highly interested in strengthening stability and security in the Caucasus, in the soonest possible settlement of the Nagorno Artsax conflict, the message says. We are ready to make active contribution to positive advancement of the process, as we have done before, the Russian leader assured.

http://www.panarmenian.net

[ARR]

http://www.gov.am/photos/govmembers/serge.sargsyan.150.jpg

SERGE SARGSIAN EXPRESSED DEFINITE DISCORD WITH EUROPEAN OBSERVERS ASSESSMENT OF ELECTIONS IN ARMENIA

- March 07, 2003 17:16

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Serge Sargsian, head of the electoral headquarters of presidential contender Robert Kocharian, expressed definite discord with the OSCE and Council of Europe observation missions' assessment of the second round of the presidential elections in Armenia. As reported by "Mediamax" agency, Serge Sargsian cited an extract from the report, which said European observers did not register any transgressions in 87% of the election centers visited. "Thus, I suppose, the report rests on the 13% of the polling stations, where shortcomings were available," – S.Sargsian said. Moreover, he mentioned, one of the European observers following the vote in Kapan city thanked the district electoral commission for well-organized elections. However, S.Sargsian noted, the observers' preliminary report mentions that station among those where violations were registered. The chief of the headquarters noted the Armenian authorities would do their best to give comprehensive answers to European observers' questions. Commenting on the difference between the evaluations of the European observers and their CIS counterparts, Serge Sargsian expressed opinion that CIS representatives "perceive the local reality more clearly."

http://www.panarmenian.net

 

87% of polling stations with no irregularities is a high "B"; however I would give Armenian Elections a solid "C". But EU and US gave it an "F".

[axel]

If Yugoslavia is to serve as an example, then we should look closely at the situation that arose after Milosevic was thrown out of office. At that time, the democratic and "anti-corruption" opposition seized power as Kostunica was elected President and Zoran Djindjic was named prime minister.

 

__________________________________________________________

 

12:30 2001-08-24

 

NEBOJSHA MALIC: THE SERBIAN STANDOFF

 

On August 3, 2001, a retired State Security (SDB) official by the name of Momir Gavrilovic visited the office of Yugoslavia's President Vojislav Kostunica, and talked to his advisors about the links between the Serbian government of Zoran Djindjic and organized crime. We will never know what made the habitually quiet "Gavra" (as his wife called him) talk. He was gunned down the same evening.

When the Belgrade daily, Blic, cited inside sources from Kostunica's office claiming that Gavrilovic discussed government corruption, Djindjic's henchmen Vladan Batic and Zarko Korac immediately unleashed a barrage of vitriol against the paper. Police interrogated the editor and demanded that the editor reveal the name of his source. The editor refused, and on August 9, President Kostunica confirmed the Blic story.

Djindjic -- on a secret lobbying trip to Washington, after selling Serbia's computer market to Microsoft -- took a week to cry foul. By then, the unholy alliance between Djindjic, Montenegro's despot, Milo Djukanovic, and the most powerful criminal clans in Serbia, was out in the open.

 

Kostunica Strikes Back

On August 17, Kostunica's party struck back, announcing it was quitting the Serbian government and calling for a review of its practices. This threw Djindjic's cabinet into chaos and stoked fears that the entire regime could collapse.

At a press conference on the 21st, Dragan Marsicanin, the Chairman of the Serbian Parliament and one of the leaders in Kostunica's DSS, cited a plethora of issues his party intended to raise. Among them: that the government was deceiving the people, that it had not implemented any of its promised reforms, that it did not function properly, that it has established monopolies and taken over thousands of enterprises, that its Prime Minister maintains connections with mobsters, and that the current economic and political crisis in Serbia is largely a product of the current government, not its Socialist predecessor. This type of thinking in a country that has until recently blamed everything but foul weather on Milosevic is nothing short of revolutionary.

 

Better Late than Never?

It was not so long ago that Djindjic was riding high on the wave of treacherous accomplishments: he had successfully monopolized the Serbian oil and cigarette trade in the government's hands, delivered Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague Inquisition -- destroying the Serbian and Yugoslav constitution in the process -- and had just about destroyed his only serious rival, Kostunica. Kostunica has only now begun to really fight back. Kostunica's inaction in June and July cost him much in the eyes of the people. How much, exactly -- enough to be defeated in the slugfest with Djindjic? -- only time will tell.

 

Serbia's Opposite of Democracy

It is nothing short of a miracle that a coalition of no less than 18 parties spanning the entire political spectrum has survived this long. Still incongruously called the "Democratic Opposition," the ruling hydra more resembles the "Opposite of Democracy," with parties and egotistical leaders that can hardly stomach each other, and that disagree on how the country should be organized.

Only two of the 18 parties -- Djindjic's Democrats (DS) and Kostunica's Serbian Democrats (DSS) -- have any chance of victory on their own -- the others barely have a program and a functioning office. If elections were held tomorrow, the DSS would triumph convincingly, and all the freeloaders that jumped on Kostunica's victorious bandwagon last year could be left behind in the dust. Djindjic, whose popularity has steadily run in single digits and who came to power only because his candidacy list ran under Kostunica's name, faces certain defeat. Kostunica's revolt opens up prospects for criminal charges against the wannabe despot, on grounds ranging from embezzlement, smuggling and corruption, to crimes against the Constitution and high treason. Given such prospects, Djindjic is likely to put up a major fight.

 

A Crook...

Evidence of that came on Tuesday, as Djindjic's allies took aim at the helpless, deceased Gavrilovic. A certain Dragan Karleusa, introduced as "deputy police superintended for organized crime," alleged that Gavrilovic was a mobster involved in smuggling, drug-running, murders and extortion. This is the same Karleusa, then identified as "police captain," who was in charge of the infamous "refrigerator truck" investigation, trotted out to justify president Milosevic's abduction in late June and then forgotten -- except when recycled by some pro-NATO papers, who make it more sinister with each telling. So does Karleusa run war crimes cases or organized crime cases -- or is he just a loyal underling that Minister Mihajlovic uses for dirty work such as character assassination?

Mihajlovic is a shady businessman who made a fortune during Milosevic's "dictatorship," and saved his fortune from Djindjic's Great Looting Tax on "extra profit" by becoming Herr Kanzler's most rabid henchman. His wielding of the police ministry as a baton against all of Djindjic's enemies caused the DSS to demand his resignation even before the Gavrilovic affair.

Djindjic's gambit is transparent. Had Gavrilovic really been a shady figure, that would have been mentioned on the night of his murder, not two weeks later. Belgrade may have over a million residents, but it is still a surprisingly small city. Its rumor mill has worked all too well for over two centuries. Gavrilovic's shady past, if there had been one, would have been known right away. Besides, it is hard to keep a straight face when Djindjic's henchmen accuse the deceased of befriending a mobster, when Djindjic himself has been known to use the very same mobster's private jet to visit his sponsors in the Western world.

 

What Dreams May Come

There are two possible ways of resolving the present crisis. Either the DSS will cut a deal with the rest of the Djindjic-dominated coalition and lose face (again) by bartering honesty for two or three ministerial posts in a "reconstructed" government, or the coalition will be torn asunder, and new elections called. This would be a good thing, since whoever emerges victorious from the power struggle would have a clear mandate to shape Serbia and Yugoslavia as they wish, as well as the burden of responsibility if that process backfires.

In the final analysis, the days to come will be a crucial test of Kostunica's dubious willingness to hold firm on principle and stand up to foreign interference, Djindjic's ability (or lack thereof) to continue serving foreign masters without being sheltered by Kostunica's reputation, and the Serbian people's will and ability to decide their own fate.

Who runs Serbia and Yugoslavia has wide-ranging implications for the Balkans. A victory for pro-independence Constitutionalists (as opposed to "pragmatic" Westernists) would be a serious blow to Imperial control of the Balkans, one that would -- let us hope -- serve as an example for Serbia's neighbors. The Empire's bullying insistence that all resistance to its domination is futile is an illusion that needs only be successfully shattered once. No amount of tanks, bombs and men would be able to put it together again afterwards.

[MosJan]

loxx munq enq

http://armenianow.com/2003/march07/picoftheweek/001s.jpg

[MosJan]

Lseq bayst inch lordu Sorruni tesq uni es serjik@.

[Azat]

Armenia: Kocharian Sworn In For Second Term

VOA News

09 Apr 2003, 15:15 UTC

 

Armenian president Robert Kocharian has been sworn in for his second term amid tight security and continuing opposition protests.

 

Mr. Kocharian - who was elected in a controversial March 5 run-off vote - swore on the Constitution to respect human rights and to uphold Armenia's territorial integrity, independence and security.

 

In his inaugural address Wednesday the Armenian leader said the election struggle was tough and uncompromising, but that the time has come to put the past behind.

 

Several thousand opposition activists gathered before the ceremony, hoping to picket the parliament building. But police blocked off the area and dispersed the unarmed protesters.

 

At the same time as the swearing in, the Constitutional Court in Yerevan held a hearing on challenger Stepan Demirchian's demand that the election results be thrown out.

 

Mr. Demirchian finished second in the presidential election, but opposition leaders say the vote was rigged.

 

The Council of Europe has called on Armenian authorities to examine the electoral complaints.

 

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectI...E3670992A7C7DF0

[alpha]

Isn't it idiotic that members of ruling elite describe the whole nation as immature, in order to justify their failures and imcompetence.

 

http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeniarepor...A49D1C4BEB4.ASP

 

Armenians ‘Not Yet Ready’ For Western Democracy, Election Chief Says

 

By Karine Kalantarian

 

Armenian society has not yet matured enough to hold elections meeting Western standards for democracy, the head of Armenia’s Central Election Commission (CEC) claimed on Monday in another bid to rationalize serious irregularities reported during the recent presidential vote.

 

Artak Sahradian echoed Robert Kocharian’s earlier complaints that the West, which has strongly criticized his reelection, is too strict in assessing Armenia’s commitment to liberal democracy. Sahradian said bluntly that it is “absurd” to expect an election not marred by vote rigging from a nation that has been independent for only 11 years and had for decades been part of the Soviet empire.

 

“The society itself should develop and reach that level,” he told a seminar in Yerevan. “Believe me, it is impossible to bring it [to that level] artificially.”

 

The seminar, organized by the Council of Europe, focused on ways of improving electoral practices that have long thwarted Armenia’s democratization and tarnished its image in the West. Sahradian claimed that despite the chronic electoral fraud, the country is slowly but steadily moving towards the standards it pledged to respect when it joined the Strasbourg-based organization in January 2001. The disputed presidential election marked another step in that direction, he added.

 

A joint observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) concluded that the vote, held in two rounds on February 19 and March 5, fell short of democratic standards. The observers reported “widespread” ballot box stuffing and other “serious” irregularities.

 

While admitting “numerous” violations of the law during the voting and counting processes, Kocharian insists that those had no impact on the official outcome of the election. He has also complained that the Western observers standards for a clean vote were too stringent for a country like Armenia.

 

Sahradian, like other senior Armenian officials, argued that they reported significant irregularities only from 13 percent of polling stations they visited during the March 5 run-off. The OSCE/PACE mission called it a “disturbingly high figure,” in its final election report issued last week.

[Azat]

The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election

Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper

May 23, 2003

 

Summary

 

Since the mid-1990s, Armenian authorities have used administrative detention as a tool of repression, locking up protesters and activists at times of political tension. The 2003 presidential election and its aftermath mark the most sustained, extensive abuses in the last seven years. In February and March 2003, the police used the Code of Administrative Offenses, which sets out penalties for public order misdemeanors, to lock up dozens of opposition activists and supporters for periods of up to fifteen days. The police and courts applied the Code arbitrarily, claiming that opposition rallies and marches were "threats to public order" or "unauthorized," and that any of the tens of thousands of participants could be punished. The arrests disrupted the opposition candidate's campaign, and intimidated opposition supporters engaged in peacefully protesting the election result. They appeared aimed at stifling public criticism of the conduct of the vote-which was won by incumbent President Robert Kocharian, amid serious claims of election fraud.

 

The abuses stem both from ambiguities in the Code itself and from the actions of police and courts, which routinely ignore Code provisions that provide protections for defendants. The Code contains a number of vague terms and at times contradictory provisions that invite inconsistent application. Police officials and other authorities, for their part, often erroneously claim that those held on administrative offenses do not have the same rights as those charged under the criminal code. They routinely hold cursory court hearings, closed to the public, deny defendants access to legal counsel, and do not allow defendants any opportunity to call witnesses in their defense. These actions violate defendants' rights, established in the Code and in international human rights law, to a public trial, to legal counsel, to know the charges against them, and to call witnesses in their defense.1 Procedural violations, and a short-circuiting of the judicial process appear to be the norm in police and court application of administrative detention.2

 

Since independence in 1991, Armenia has enacted a number of legal reforms to protect due process rights. Failure to reform the Soviet-era administrative detention system to bring it into accord with prevailing international norms, however, is subverting this progress. This paper describes Armenia's administrative detention system, documents its use against opposition supporters, and details due process violations in its implementation.

 

Human Rights Watch calls on the Armenian government to ensure that law enforcement and judicial authorities do not arbitrarily detain and intimidate political activists in the forthcoming parliamentary elections and constitutional referendum, scheduled for May 25. Human Rights Watch calls on the international community to make reform of the system of administrative detention a part of its relationship with the government of Armenia. Human Rights Watch also urges the Armenian government to take serious measures to eradicate the abuse of administrative detention. Such measures should include:

 

 

Reform of the administrative courts to ensure their genuine independence from the law enforcement agencies and the executive, and to ensure that they protect due process guarantees contained in the Code of Administrative Offenses (or its successor law), the Constitution, and Armenia's international human rights obligations.

 

Reform of the Code of Administrative Offenses to make it fully consistent with the framework of current Armenian law, removing anachronisms, and clearly relating the substance of administrative offenses to existing laws or normative acts. This would reduce opportunities for arbitrariness in determining what constitute administrative offenses.

 

 

 

Legal reform to ensure that the police may not use administrative arrest as a license for arbitrary and incommunicado detention. Its time limit should be set clearly at three hours, as certain language in the Code stipulates, rather than being open-ended, as other Code language makes possible. The obligation for police to maintain a transparent system of registering all detainees should be legislated unambiguously, and vigorously enforced. Police officers who fail to do so should be held accountable.

 

 

Introduction of a clear right to appeal judicial decisions regarding "administrative" detention, and the removal of practical barriers to its realization. A procedure for the conduct of appeal hearings should be introduced, and a right of further appeal to the Court of Cassation should be introduced, as provided for in the civil and criminal procedure codes. The right of appeal must in practice protect the individual's interest in liberty, in that the defendant may both immediately challenge detention and have a genuine opportunity to secure conditional release pending the final decision of the appeal.

 

 

Legislation or normative acts regulating public demonstrations and marches should be introduced. Any such law should set out a procedure for challenging denial of permission.

 

1 See Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

 

2 Administrative detention is customarily understood to mean detention ordered by a non-judicial body. However, in this case the detention is determined by a court. The same due process guarantees afforded criminal defendants under Article 14 of the ICCPR and Article 6 of ECHR also apply in such cases. Although the Armenian practice in most respects conforms to judicially determined detention, for the sake of simplicity and clarity we shall continue to refer to it as administrative detention throughout this document.

 

 

You can read the entire article here: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/armenia/index.htm

or get the PDF version from here: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/armenia/ar...ia052303bck.pdf

[Harut]

can someone explain how does the parlamentary election work in Armenia?

hamamasnakan, metsamasnakan, yes inch gitem inch sound confusing.

[Armen]

Armenian opposition holds rally in Yerevan center

By Tigran Liloyan

 

ITAR-TASS News Agency

October 17, 2003 Friday 2:49 PM Eastern Time

 

About 3,000 opposition supporters had a rally in downtown Yerevan on

Friday evening to mark the beginning of the autumn political season.

 

It is only thanks to the Armenian people and the opposition that there

was no bloodshed during the recent president election in Armenia and

there were no disturbances similar to the current events in Baku,

Chairman of the Armenian People's Party Stepan Demirchyan said.

 

The opposition will insist on holding a referendum on no confidence

in the authorities, head of another opposition party, Republic,

Albert Bazeyan said.

 

No incidents happened during the rally.

[ED]

can someone explain how does the parlamentary election work in Armenia?

hamamasnakan, metsamasnakan, yes inch gitem inch sound confusing.

 

Harut, here is a web site you might want to take a look at.

 

http://par03.elections.am/?lan=eng&go=constit

[ARR]

Court sentences Armen Sarkisian to 15 years in prison

http://www.armenialiberty.org/images/photo/Armen-Sark2.jpg

armenianliberty.org

[KavorKin99]

i vote for armenchik lol

[Azat]

i vote for armenchik lol

Please lets not ruin this serious thread as well. Not every thread on this forum should be smilies and jokes.

[Harut]

Court sentences Armen Sarkisian to 15 years in prison

armenianliberty.org

ARR

what does this have to do with elections?

[ARR]

Court sentences Armen Sarkisian to 15 years in prison

armenianliberty.org

ARR

what does this have to do with elections?

Armen Sarkisian by ordering Tigran Naghdalyan was helping his brother Aram and his friend Stephan Demirchian to get elected. Tigran Naghdalyan was a fierce critic of Stephan and Aram and a supporter of Kocharyan. For the first time in Armenia, justice has been served. But Armen Sarkisan should have been sentenced to life in prison.

[Harut]

Armen Sarkisian by ordering Tigran Naghdalyan was helping his brother Aram and his friend Stephan Demirchian to get elected.

is that a speculation? or court really found it to be the reason?

 

For the first time in Armenia, justice has been served. But Armen Sarkisan should have been sentenced to life in prison.

 

what i figure from the (limited amout of) news i get, it's been yet another twisted trial with omissions and sentimental evidences.

[ARR]

is that a speculation? or court really found it to be the reason?

I get plenty of news about Armenia. And if you follow the trial, the testimonies, etc, it becomes pretty clear he did it. Most people who defend him don’t have any factual evidence except for feelings and passion. I feel sorry for judge in the case; you should have seen how he gets interrupted, how defense lawyers try to teach him how to do his job instead of presenting a sound defense. However, "kardabalet" did not work this time and the court had enough factual and testimonial evidence from several sources to actually prove he did it.

 

The times of outlaw for brother of Sparapet and dummy ex-prime minister have passed.

 

Tigran Naghdalyan was pretty racy in his pre-election programs, but killing another person should not go unpunished.

[alpha]

Interesting assessment of elections in Caucasus. This makes one remember that at one time US was supporting Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. Isn't it in the best interests of US to ostracize leaders in countries where the human rights are violated, and democracy is only a poorly performed spectacle for the outside world.

 

http://www.truthnews.net/world/2003110081.htm

 

 

 

A Smoldering Caucasus And The Quiet Americans

 

Tom Lantos, November 20, 2003

 

President Bush has declared that the time is ripe for a new strategy to foster democracy in the Middle East. If it ends up looking anything like what the US has done lately in the Caucasus, we might as well not even try. Caspian oil reserves - an alternative that could reduce US dependence on OPEC - seem to count for more than human rights and democracy in US policy toward the region.

 

The Republic of Georgia is but the most recent example: Its Nov. 2 parliamentary elections were such a sham that the country's Central Electoral Commission invalidated the results at a number of polling stations and held a repeat election at those stations Sunday - but even that turned into a fiasco when several polls didn't receive ballots in time.

 

There have been widespread calls within Georgia to scrap all the Nov. 2 election results and start again; President Eduard Shevardnadze has refused. Now thousands are taking to the streets in protests that bear a striking resemblance to antigovernment protests in the 1990s that swept Mr. Shevardnadze to power, but not before the country descended into civil war.

 

And what is the US government's public position on this crisis? While Western observers describe the elections as blatantly manipulated by the Shevardnadze government, the State Department has been studiously low-key, sending high-level representatives but withholding significant public comment. And Mr. Bush has said nothing at all.

 

The Georgian situation practically replicates what happened with the Armenian presidential elections earlier this year and the elections in Azerbaijan last month. In both cases, widespread fraud elicited only a mild rebuke from the US.

 

The political sovereignty and economic stability of the three Caucasus states are very much in the national interest of the US, which has cultivated them as allies since the breakup of the Soviet Union loosened Russia's hold on the region. The relationships paid off after the Sept. 11 attacks, when the Caucasus states allowed US flyover rights on the way to the war in Afghanistan.

 

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has allocated substantial human and financial resources to sustain these nations and preserve their viability as independent states. Its efforts to develop civil society include funding nongovernmental organizations, promoting development of political parties, and supporting a free press. But for what, if the US fails to show some backbone about ensuring free and fair elections?

 

Both Azerbaijan and Armenia are ruled by presidents who lack legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of their citizens. Widespread ballot irregularities in Armenia have led to charges that the election was stolen. In Azerbaijan, authorities acted openly to secure President Ilham Aliyev's victory by excluding the opposition from the electoral process. Without a broad mandate from their respective electorates, neither Mr. Aliyev nor President Robert Kocharian will be able to steer his nation toward economic prosperity, let alone end the Nagorno-Artsax conflict that has damaged relations between them for a decade.

 

The lack of democracy and civil society will also prevent the Caucasus from tackling the post-Soviet brand of corruption now endemic to the region. The exploration and transport of hydrocarbon resources from the Caspian Sea to Western markets must continue, but this development must proceed in an equitable manner benefitting all citizens of the producer and transit counties. A failure to fully promote democracy will ensure that the profits from oil production will end up in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt leaders and government officials.

 

While it's true that the US has to work with the Alievs, Kocharians, and Shevardnadzes of this world to continue protecting its interests, at the very least the State Department should openly hold these leaders' feet to the fire on democracy. More important, though, would be a ringing rebuke from the secretary of State himself, or even Bush.

 

When the three countries of the southern Caucasus gained their independence in 1991, they inherited abysmal economies, corruption, ethnic and territorial conflicts, and weak civil societies. But they also had a highly educated populace, hungry for democracy and economic freedom, and strong secular traditions separating religion and state.

 

Since then, the US has made a significant investment in the region in hope of building stable democracies based on the rule of law and market economies. Recently the US has reinforced their sovereignty, minimized Iranian and Russian influences, and secured the support of all three governments in the war against terrorism. But in respect to the most fundamental value of American foreign policy - promoting democracy and human rights - the US has fallen short in the Caucasus.

 

The highest levels of US government must hold the leaders of these countries accountable until they demonstrate they can lead in an enlightened way consistent with their international commitments. Otherwise, the Caucasus may disintegrate into a string of failed and authoritarian states, and no amount of Caspian oil will save the US from the result.

 

Congressman Tom Lantos of California is the ranking Democratic member of the House International Relations Committee.

[Sasun]

http://www.truthnews.net/world/2003110081.htm

 

A Smoldering Caucasus And The Quiet Americans

 

Tom Lantos, November 20, 2003

Sorry... a typical American short-sighted and arrogant view. Not surprising since it is coming from a politician.

[MJ]

Interesting assessment of elections in Caucasus.  This makes one remember that at one time US was supporting Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.  Isn't it in the best interests of US to ostracize leaders in countries where the human rights are violated, and democracy is only a poorly performed spectacle for the  outside world.

I think the assessments on Caucasus are right on the mark and anyone not seeing the accuracy of these assessments on the basis of merits is as corrupt as the leadership of the Caucasian Republics. It is unfortunate that the US government has not taken a principle stance in Caucasus, and thus, implicitly has sent a wrong message. Partially, it can be explained by the fact that their plate is full. However, and unfortunately, the failed Clintonian legacy of the US foreign policy towards Caucasus as a landscape to be portrayed with one brush continues.

 

Only I don't know when has US supported Bin Laden.

Edited November 21, 2003 by MJ

[THOTH]

Yes MJ - can agree with you here 100% (even concerning Clinton's foriegn policy...or lack thereof). And the article in question is spot on IMO.

 

And i also can't recall ever supporting Bin laden - unless it was through soem obscure cement contract or such....yeah - we came blame Bechtel..thats always easy to do...

[shiner]

I heard Bin Laden was the head of the CIA in Saudi Arabia. Then he got pissed when the U.S. dumped him. Is this true?

[THOTH]

shiner - please...what next - Micahel Jackson rrally sits on the Supreme Court? Come now...

[MJ]

I heard Bin Laden was the head of the CIA in Saudi Arabia. Then he got pissed when the U.S. dumped him. Is this true?

No. Actually he was the shadow president of USA...