arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)
|
Wellstone : assassinat politique aux USA ? by arty Thursday October 31, 2002 at 01:27 AM |
| arty@ARTivisme.net |
Le sénateur américain Paul Wellstone, virulent opposant du président Bush est décédé ce samedi 26 octobre dans un accident d'avion privé, alors qu'il approchait de son aéroport de destination. La thèse d'un assassinat politique est évoquée par de nombreux média indépendants, tandis que la presse professionnelle attribue le crash aux mauvaises conditions météo, malgré que les responsables de l'aéroport affirment que les conditions météo n'étaient pas particulièrement mauvaises.
Voici les faits qui confirment la thèse d'un assassinat politique :
| 1. | Cet "accident" intervient 11 jours avant des élections sénatoriales extrêmement importantes pour le président Bush. En effet, les Républicains qui ont la majorité à la Chambre des Représentants n'ont pas la majorité au Sénat où les Démocrates l'emportent d'une seule voix : 50 Dém., 49 Rép. et un indépendant. | |
| 2. | Wellstone était le sénateur le plus critique vis-à-vis du président Bush. Vivement opposé à une intervention militaire US en Irak, il représentait la gauche du parti Démocrate. | |
| 3. | La presse professionnelle dans son ensemble n'évoque pas la possibilité d'un assassinat politique, et attribue plutôt l' "accident" aux conditions météos défavorables. Pourtant, la Federal Aviation Administration a certifié que les conditions météo n'étaient pas dramatiques au moment du crash (" the pilots had reported no problems before the crash and there was no severe weather in the area at the time "), et que de toutes façons ce type d'avion est capable de voler par tous types de temps (" It's an all-weather aircraft, capable of flying all the time "). |
Sources :
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/minn_crash021025.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=1&cid=514&u=/ap/20021025/ap_on_re_us/plane_down
|
Rumors aren't sufficient! by Wim Cardoen Thursday October 31, 2002 at 05:32 AM |
Dear Arty,
You should carefully read the American newspapers
(e.g the New York Times (NYT) on Sunday or this week).
The NYT mentioned that Paul Wellstone would have had a hard time (it was a tight race) to get reelected at the upcoming ballot.
The sympathy that may emerge now, can make it harder for his Republican opponent. (this reminds me of the Carnahan case where the wife of a deceased Senator obtained an (unprecedented) posthumous victory)
It's fun to make speculations, but I'm looking forward to some strong evidence of evildoing.
Regards,
Wim Cardoen
|
You miss very important points, Wim by arty Thursday October 31, 2002 at 09:49 AM |
| arty@ARTivisme.net |
Hi Wim,
"WOULD have had a hard time" IS a rumour.
I give only proven facts.
You don't.
I know the Carnahan case : Hashcroft was the opponent, actually. But you miss a very important point : Wellstone's wife was also in the plane, she is dead know. It is far from sure that the new Democrate candidate will "profit" from sympathy as much as Carnahan's wife did.
Read the NYT very carefully : it's a Republican newspaper. And it is a proven fact that the NYT has a tendency to manipulate it's readers -->
http://cyberie.qc.ca/chronik/20020219.html#a
You talk about rumour. The report from the Federal Aviation Administration confirm that the "weather argument" is false. IT IS therefore a rumour. Where does it come from ? Here is what the ABC (along with all US newspapers) tells us : "The cause of the crash was not immediately known, but sources told ABCNEWS that during the preflight weather briefing, the pilots were told they would have "adverse icing conditions throughout the flight."
Why don't they tell us the name of that "source" ? Why do they still mention the "information" provided by that unknown source, while the Federal Aviation Administration confirms that weather conditions were NOT that bad ?
Regards
arty
|
box noir by guido Thursday October 31, 2002 at 12:10 PM |
Le box noir de l'avion ou Wellstone était dedans a disparu. Je l'ai lu quelque part.
|
Infos complémentaires by arty Thursday October 31, 2002 at 01:06 PM |
Il semble que ce type d'avion n'est pas équipé de "boîtes noires" -->
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1752/3400272.html
L'avion -->
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1608/3390191.html
Commentaires -->
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29.shtml
|
merci by guido Thursday October 31, 2002 at 01:59 PM |
merci pour l'info ;)
|
Read my arguments correctly by Wim Cardoen Thursday October 31, 2002 at 05:07 PM |
Dear Arty,
Your "arguments" make no sense at all.
1. It is not a rumor that Paul Wellstone would have had a hard time. In the past, Paul Wellstone campaigned by car or truck. This time, he took airplanes for his campaign in order to reach a broader audience, because his reelection was in danger.
2. It was/is a tight race. All polls seem to confirm this.
This is neither a rumor.
3. Walter Mondale, who will run in his place was a Minnesota senator and former vice-president.
He is well-known and has a broader support than Carnahan's wife had.
4. The New York Times is not a Republican newspaper.
I really doubt if you have ever read the NYT.
The NYT is of course a bourgeois newspaper and biased, but that doesn't imply that the NYT is Republican.
Republicans would rather prefer the Washington Post.
Some facts:
a. I'm quite sure that you never read Paul Krugman's articles and opinions of about the bubble economy. Republicans abhorr of his Keynesian approach.
b. The recent articles on Iraq are not really in favor of the Bush administration.
A few months ago, they revealed that the White House and Pentagon officials knew that Saddam used mustard against the Kurds. They even "allowed" him because they were terrified by the advent of an Iranian victory.
c. The NYT unveiled in detail the Washington based backing of the Venezulean coup.
...
That doesn't mean that I agree with the NYT, but I see
it a source of more reliable and well-written information than the "articles" you're refering to.
Wim Cardoen
PS: Incognito, you seem to be a very courageous person.