― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:18 (twenty years ago) link
If you think the American government and the Pentagon don't think strategically about foreign affairs
If the "American Government" is an entity that acts on the world stage with a coherent objective over a long period of time, then discussions about what Bush would do vs. what Gore would have done or what Clinton did are rendered invalid.
Even the Pentagon, while entrenched and isolated to a certain degree from the executive branch, is an extremely transient place. Generals with enough power to make long-term "strategic" policy don't stay around long enough to implement it. They spend a lot of money thinking about things, maybe, but, no I don't think there's a nefarious strategy.
If we had a consistent, long-term strategy, we'd be better at running the world.
Nike and Coca-cola, on the other hand, DO have long-term strategies. And they do pretty well.
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:22 (twenty years ago) link
No it doesn't, it means that they will respond to the same research, data, prognosis, planning, advice etc differently.
I don't think there's a nefarious strategy.
Consider this from the CIA archive:
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende [Chilean leader] be overthrown by a coup... We are to continue to generate maximum pressures toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that United States Government and American hand be well hidden."
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:28 (twenty years ago) link
It's arguable that the US acted in 94 firstly out of American interests in dealing with the refugee problem, sure. I'm glad that you effectively concede my point that we did the right thing, whatever our motive. You seek to elide that concession by monolithically - and offensively - using "the US" to suggest that our motives remained the same but changed merely because of the facts, suggesting that the Clinton administration approached world affairs in exactly the same way and with the same motives as either of the Bush administrations, the latter of which no longer has the popular opinion support of even half of the country.
Maybe I should say this instead:
Britain did what Britain always does: it did what it thought was in British interests - imperialism - and when things didn't turn out as planned, it sent in the army in order to intervene again. Both in Iraq and in the Falklands.
But because I'm free from kneejerk anti-Americanism (and anti-interventionism and pacifism), I can admit that once in a while Britain does something simply because it's right.
Actually, a government that didn't do this would be stupid and vulnerable.
Yes. Quite, as y'all say. It sounds like you're justifying it.
And what does the Nixon administration have to do with the Clinton administration, more than 20 years later?
Leave the democratically elected government alone.
Provide some evidence that the elections were fair and not rigged.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:37 (twenty years ago) link
Tactical: overthrow Allende via coupStrategic: formulate policy to foster x-type of political structure in Latin America overall. With the resulting goal of ____.
Good longterm policy, political, corporate, whatever, also includes an exit strategy. We never have one. Reagan's goal, end the Soviet Union. Okay, it happens, what replaces it? Anarchy. Ditto virtually everywhere else we've had a hand.
Also, there's little distinction in the American policy of intervention between big goals and little goals.
Soviet Union/Iraq - high stakesHaiti/Chile/Grenada/Panama - no stakes at all
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:42 (twenty years ago) link
That we can consider something from the CIA archives is telling.
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:45 (twenty years ago) link
I did not. I simply said that you were wrong to intervene in the first place and continue to be wrong to intervene now.
If you think that various administrations start from scratch with their military and foreign policies, consider this chain of events:
Colin Powell had laid military contingency plans to deal with Iraq prior to the first Gulf War. Regime change was argued for by Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense as early as 1992. Regime change in Iraq was policy in the Clinton administration. And in a report written in 1999 by a group including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle, it was stated that American military intervention in Iraq for regime change could not get popular support in the States unless there was "a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor". They got one and then all their planning came into action.
America has no right to such evidence after the way that Bush got in. But either way, this is typical muscular American foreign policy: find a minority group who dispute the government of a foreign state that isn't towing the US line and back them. If the minority claim that the elections weren't fair then all the better. It is just an excuse for American muscle.
By the way, I'm not a knee-jerk anti-American. I agree with you about Britain's imperialist policies. My points are never against America as such. However, when I think that America is wrong, I will say so. By calling this knee-jerk you are either trying to ridicule opposition or you actually believe, slavishly, that opposition to American good sense is always ridiculous. That's quite sad.
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:50 (twenty years ago) link
Oh, I like this one. Pure ideology!
The argument - if there was one, rather than this assertion - would be something like this: America is an open society and here is the proof, the CIA opens its archive so that we can see what awful things it got up to destabilising countries all over the world. Forget about what the CIA were doing in these countries. If only the societies that the CIA is fucking up were as open as the US then the CIA would not need to covertly undermine them.
A bullying open society is justified in bullying the world because it is open, is it? It is the bullying that is the problem and using the open society to justify it is to fail to justify it. Basically, there is no justification for imperial bullying, so what imperial powers do is defend it by referring to the superiority of their culture instead.
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:56 (twenty years ago) link
― cybele (cybele), Saturday, 28 February 2004 17:40 (twenty years ago) link
Scales falling from eyes! Well yes, of course. And?
Cute closing note of moral superiority. Very Joe Lieberman.
I do believe that you are a knee-jerk anti-American at least in the sense that you are unwilling to regard "America" as anything other than an entity that acts outside its borders, whether or not it acts with the support or even knowledge of its people, or to distinguish between different American administrations or between administrations and America's people.
I don't think we can talk about whether American intervention here is justified, because there is no American intervention here. I am readily willing to concede that Haitian expatriates in the US, the CIA, Republicans outside of government, Republicans in government, or any combination of these, may be involved in what's going on now. The US is not, as a matter of formal policy, although concededly it is officially taking at least a hands-off approach and may be well aware of what's really happening.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the Bush administration, and/or some other part of the government is involved at least indirectly. I am arguing against your opposition to such involvement (even if I might agree with such opposition; I'm not informed enough to take a position one way or the other) because I perceive the opposition to be based simply on the fact of American involvement, as well as on the assumption - not necessarily wrong, but without evidence that you have examined the facts - that Aristide is good or popular and that an American-approved alternative would be bad or unpopular. I don't necessarily assume the opposite, and having looked around more I am more skeptical about the stories of Aristide's undemocratic tendencies (though, as is always true in attempting to prove a negative, I haven't seen hard evidence either). But if I have bought into "propaganda" about Aristide, so has Isabel Hilton.
The argument - if there was one, rather than this assertion - would be something like this: America is an open society and here is the proof, the CIA opens its archive so that we can see what awful things it got up to destabilising countries all over the world. Forget about what the CIA were doing in these countries.
I'm not going to back up Skottie's point here, but I don't think that you understood it.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 28 February 2004 17:53 (twenty years ago) link
I can't tell if you're kneejerk anti-american or not, doesn't matter. You do seem to be kneejerk anti-interventionist, however. And a touch paranoid. The problem with government conspiracy theories are many, not least among them, governments can't keep secrets, and there isn't longterm continuity among the players powerful enough to try. There just isn't.
It seems unlikely that the vast, vast revenues generated by Haitian purchases of American rice would justify military intervention. What are the components of the Haitian "market" anyway. They buy rice from the U.S. with IMF loans financed by the U.S.? Or with direct aid grants from the U.S.? Come on.
Leave Haiti alone to work out its problems until there are no more Haitians standing. Then there won't be any more problems. That was the European policy in the Balkans, of course.
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 18:41 (twenty years ago) link
Which is not to say I think you're hugely misguided or anything, and for the record it's not like I know loads and loads about Haiti -- it's just that I think the traditional U.S.-interests analysis you're pushing isn't particularly effective here. Because the U.S. interest is, in this case, quite likely very simple: the goal, as always, is to sort of screw the ideological specifics and just get this county to a state where we can safely mostly-ignore it.
And there are perfectly good reasons to criticize that, which is the one place where i can semi-agree with you. As in, let's go over a list of reasons why we wouldn't take a hand-off approach to Haiti -- reasons I'm not necessarily advancing or defending but just offering up as surely the ones in operation: (a) refugees, (b) Haitian-American voters, (c) even worse chaos and violence that eventually shames the "uncaring" U.S. into stepping in anyway, eventually, plus of course (d) inclination to stabilize the thing you know and can live with rather than open the door to something even non-ideologues couldn't stomach. And it's that last point, sensible as it is, that I think you're trying to hammer at, right? Because it's Not Our Place to be stomaching or not-stomaching the government of another nation, right? And I semi-agree with you on that one, but not universally, because that logic, carried to its extreme, means abandoning even our more worthwhile principles.
And you'd have to say more than you're currently saying to convince me that Haiti is a situation that deserves that kind of neglect.
― nabiscothingy, Sunday, 29 February 2004 00:28 (twenty years ago) link
American interest in keeping Aristide in power isn't necessarily due to apathy or just an interest in keeping things calm. Right now there is no one to fill the Aristide's position if he's deposed. However ineffectual Aristide is, The Cannibal Army (I'm sorry, "The Gonaives Resistance Front") is a lot less prepared (and less willing) to try and rebuiled Haiti.
― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Sunday, 29 February 2004 00:51 (twenty years ago) link
― Skottie, Sunday, 29 February 2004 01:24 (twenty years ago) link
I try not to get involved in political threads anymore (I get in them, then don't go back for a few days, and lose all interest in debate), but here I gotta say Skottie's OTM. Prime Example:
"and until then, you will simply believe all the propaganda you get in favour of American intervention?"
― Alan Conceicao, Sunday, 29 February 2004 02:44 (twenty years ago) link
Stomaching and not-stomaching other governments, when it is backed with the military - ie imposing stomach-able governments on other nations - is problematic, I agree. And yes, that's is my main gripe with Americans contemplating what they should do about the situation in Haiti.
In run it off's weltanschauung, the U.S. is always either in "uncaring" or "meddling imperialistic" mode. This binary status is convenient because whatever the situation, the U.S. is always wrong.
Show me where I did this. I haven't once talked about the US being uncaring and I don't think the US would be uncaring if it kept out of other nation's democratic business. And, to reiterate, I am not limiting my anti-imperialism to the US.
By the way, this is not pacifism. If there is good reason to go to war - against an aggressive Fascism, say - then I think all governments should fight for their principles against that fascism. I'm not a pacifist, I'm anti-imperlialist. If America is flexing its imperialist muscles a lot lately, I don't consider that my fault and so my opposition to it will naturally mean arguing against American foreign policy. That doesn't make me anti-American. It makes me anti-imperialist.
― run it off (run it off), Sunday, 29 February 2004 09:53 (twenty years ago) link
Gabbneb, after being told about the strong links between administrations and the foreign policy that is common between them: Scales falling from eyes! Well yes, of course. And?
― run it off (run it off), Sunday, 29 February 2004 11:41 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Sunday, 29 February 2004 11:55 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil, Sunday, 29 February 2004 20:56 (twenty years ago) link
― cybele (cybele), Sunday, 29 February 2004 21:06 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:20 (twenty years ago) link
Also, Run it Off's commentary is definitely OTM.
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:34 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:44 (twenty years ago) link
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&e=1&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/haiti_uprising
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:46 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:49 (twenty years ago) link
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/un_haiti_10
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:55 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 07:08 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 1 March 2004 09:15 (twenty years ago) link
i think it's mostly a matter of the us not wanting to be embarrassed by a bloodbath in their backyard but otherwise ignoring the situation as best they can, or simply managing it for maximum quiet, whatever that happens to mean
― amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 1 March 2004 09:35 (twenty years ago) link
i don't know much about this; can you point me to an article that goes into detail?
i'm skeptical only because this is the "line" on so many other countries and it begins to sound overfamiliar, but you may be right.
― amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 1 March 2004 09:37 (twenty years ago) link
Here’s an article about the history of America’s intervention in Haiti
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 1 March 2004 09:52 (twenty years ago) link
Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, so you are right that America has nothing to worry about from Haiti or any Haitian leader directly. However, America insists that the countries in its 'backyard' comply with American interests. The force of this insistence can take military form, or simply be tied to aid and loan packages. When one of these countries, or their leaders, resists Washington in some way, the American government becomes nervous. There seems to be a bad-apple-mentality in the Pentagon that fears middle and southern American mutiny. So, it is not Haiti itself which is a threat to the states, but there is a perception that if the poorest nation in the western hemisphere can flout American demands that that is an unacceptable situation and a bad example. America does not demand that human rights be upheld as a precondition for aid in these countries (Colombia, for instance) only that they comply with and actively support American interests.
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 1 March 2004 11:59 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.exile.ru/184/war_nerd.html
relevant quote:
"In a way, the only sad thing about Haiti is the way we keep trying to make it into Ohio. Because it never will be, and only looks ridiculous trying, giving the local killers fancy democratic names. If we just let Haiti be Haiti—a crazy, gory voodoo kingdom—people might learn to respect the place."
― loik, Monday, 1 March 2004 12:17 (twenty years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 1 March 2004 12:33 (twenty years ago) link
oh that helps!
Isn't that quite close to the way the British empire described India before deciding India would be better off in under British rule?
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 1 March 2004 12:36 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 1 March 2004 12:42 (twenty years ago) link
Chavez is so next. Again.
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 1 March 2004 15:21 (twenty years ago) link
― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 1 March 2004 17:12 (twenty years ago) link
― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Monday, 1 March 2004 19:08 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 1 March 2004 20:42 (twenty years ago) link
America has certainly pushed for Aristide's removal, but I don't think anyone was in favor of the Cannibal Army uprising. But, you're right, the most important step is yet to come and hopefully the Bush administration will surprise us.
― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Monday, 1 March 2004 21:03 (twenty years ago) link
― Dickerson Pike (Dickerson Pike), Monday, 1 March 2004 23:18 (twenty years ago) link
Where have you gone, Jesse Helms.
― Dickerson Pike (Dickerson Pike), Monday, 1 March 2004 23:21 (twenty years ago) link
― badgerminor (badgerminor), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 02:28 (twenty years ago) link
― maypang (maypang), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 02:33 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 03:11 (twenty years ago) link
You call the line "Regime change in Iraq was policy in the Clinton administration" a "strong link[] between administrations and the foreign policy that is common between them"?! Please. What does this example have to do with Allende, the original subject? And when exactly did the Clinton administration put into effect its policy of regime change in Iraq?
I don't think I've been cynical at all. I've tried to point out America's involvement in the problem while most other people on this thread have thought only of America's intervention as a solution.
I have not posited American intervention as a solution once on this thread. Nor, I think, has anyone else.
Why'd I take flack for my statement in the first entry again?
Perhaps because the implication of the statement is that Saddam Hussein was a democratically-elected leader?
You were right, clearly, about our involvement in Aristide's removal. Apparently, it took John Kerry to fully point this out to me - even if there were no covert involvement, as an official matter, in attempting to broker a peace between Aristide and the rebels, we (and France and Canada) effectively gave the rebels a veto power that allowed the situation to develop.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 04:13 (twenty years ago) link
― badgerminor (badgerminor), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 12:46 (twenty years ago) link
Really? See below.
Nabiscobiscuit: I could very well be wrong, but it seems to me that our main "interests" there are -- if we wrap them up in one package -- to prevent refugee situations (and keep Haitian-American voters non-angry) by ensuring stability
Here the intervention as solution argument is qualified, but it stands.
dyson: well, hopefully whatever guns do make it there will help stabilize things.
Here intervention is 'hoped' for as a positive solution.
Colin Beckett: leaving Haiti alone to eat itself is no more humane a solution that engineering a puppet government.
Here intervention is proposed in the form of a fallacious opposition between doing something and doing nothing.
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 14:03 (twenty years ago) link
Clinton didn't put this policy into effect. Acting on a policy is different from having the policy. Often governments have policies that they feel, for whatever reason, that they can't get away with. Clinton had the policy nonetheless.
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 14:05 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.thenation.com/article/can-haitis-corrupt-president-hold-on-to-power/
Michel Martelly is trying to impose a successor amid widespread public anger at government repression and failure to rebuild after the earthquake.....
In another week or so, Haiti could explode, and the disastrous American policy of supporting the country’s violent and corrupt president will be a big part of the reason. Michel Martelly, prevented from continuing in office by term limits, is trying to impose a successor, and the United States has not spoken out against his ruthless, undemocratic strategy. On or after November 3, Haiti will announce the top two finishers in the first election round, held on October 25, and if Martelly’s man is one of them, thousands of enraged citizens will surge into the streets.
The United States is already widely blamed here for supporting Martelly, and the ambassador until recently, Pamela White, is singled out bitterly and publicly for her alleged closeness to him.
The mainstream US press, which was here en masse after the January 2010 earthquake, is ignoring this latest acute crisis. With few exceptions, the American media have also not reported on the nearly complete failure of the international rebuilding effort, a shameful record for which Bill and Hillary Clinton have considerable responsibility.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 30 October 2015 16:50 (eight years ago) link
Michel Martelly
He was kinda entertaining as Haitian pop performer Lil Mickey, when I saw him near W. DC years ago
― curmudgeon, Friday, 30 October 2015 17:00 (eight years ago) link
From 2011... crimes of our fave Foundation:
It is hard to imagine a better case study of the very opposite approach than the Clinton trailers. In response to questions about what due diligence the foundation did to ensure the safety of the trailers it purchased for use as hurricane shelters, the Clinton Foundation initially insisted that the most appropriate person to speak to was a Haitian employee of Clinton’s UN Office. When Graham, the foundation’s COO, finally agreed to talk about the project on the record, she denied that the foundation had been responsible for any due diligence regarding its own project, claiming that those responsible were a "panel of experts," including one point person from the foundation, Greg Milne, and representatives of other organizations. (Milne referred all questions to the foundation’s press office.) The Clinton Foundation agreed to furnish documentation of who was on this panel but by press time had not done so.
Graham said that the staff of the Clinton Foundation—which has for more than a year publicized the "hurricane shelters" that "President Clinton" built in Léogâne—are "not experts" in hurricane shelter construction. She claimed the same "panel of experts" would have been responsible for due diligence to ensure air quality of the shelters whose secondary purpose was as classrooms.
Explaining Bill Clinton’s rationale for the trailers, which were installed at the tail end of the 2010 hurricane season, Conille said, "It was not meant to be sustainable. It was meant because we didn’t want to have dead people in September." According to Conille, Clinton was deeply troubled by what would happen to the women and children in case of a serious storm—and as the former president felt that "no one" was doing anything about the issue, he took the lead himself. Moreover, Clinton didn’t want to have his new "hurricane shelters" sitting empty while schoolchildren had classes in tents, Conille added.
Yet according to Maddalena, given the high rate of formaldehyde found in one of the classrooms, and the children’s headaches, "they’d be better off studying outside under a tarp."
Wall, the former OCHA spokeswoman, responded by e-mail, "We all knew that that project was misconceived from the start, a classic example of aid designed from a distance with no understanding of ground level realities or needs. It has had a predictably long and unhappy history from the start."
https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/
― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, 7 October 2016 11:24 (seven years ago) link
Detail on the indictment of Guy Philippe:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/haitian-national-charged-international-narcotics-and-money-laundering-conspiracy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38525651
Will be interesting, if it comes to trial, to see what he says about his relationship with the US at the time of the coup - which also overlaps with the time of some of the alleged drug trade activity.
― Bubba H.O.T.A.P.E (ShariVari), Saturday, 7 January 2017 00:48 (seven years ago) link
https://www.apnews.com/2dba9cf693594bfc8fd2f432e7207704
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) — Protesters have stoned the Haitian president’s home and clashed with police, leaving at least one demonstrator dead in the third straight day of demonstrations against economic mismanagement and corruption.Organizers pledged more protests for Sunday, increasing pressure on President Jovenel Moise, who is calling for negotiations with his opposition.A crowd of thousands protested in downtown Port-au-Prince Saturday, and an Associated Press journalist saw at least one fatally shot, apparently by nearby police. Protesters in the Petionville neighborhood blocked the road to Moise’s house and stoned his property after guards protecting a Moise ally hit a woman’s car and beat her near the president’s house.Protesters are angry about skyrocketing inflation and the government’s failure to prosecute embezzlement from a multi-billion Venezuelan program that sent discounted oil to Haiti.
Organizers pledged more protests for Sunday, increasing pressure on President Jovenel Moise, who is calling for negotiations with his opposition.
A crowd of thousands protested in downtown Port-au-Prince Saturday, and an Associated Press journalist saw at least one fatally shot, apparently by nearby police. Protesters in the Petionville neighborhood blocked the road to Moise’s house and stoned his property after guards protecting a Moise ally hit a woman’s car and beat her near the president’s house.
Protesters are angry about skyrocketing inflation and the government’s failure to prosecute embezzlement from a multi-billion Venezuelan program that sent discounted oil to Haiti.
Another camera angle of protests in Port au Prince, #Haiti today. pic.twitter.com/8dIsEUjXmL— HaitiInfoProject 📡 (@HaitiInfoProj) February 7, 2019
― Karl Malone, Sunday, 10 February 2019 04:51 (five years ago) link
BREAKING: The President of Haiti, Jovenel Moise has been assassinated at his private residence, his wife also wounded in the attack.#NBSUpdates pic.twitter.com/JGbYbVgxsZ— Daniel Lutaaya (@DanielLutaaya) July 7, 2021
― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 7 July 2021 10:55 (two years ago) link
A “commando group with Spanish-speaking elements” being blamed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/07/haiti-president-jovenel-moise-reportedly-assassinated
This has the potential to be very bad if the US tries to pin it on Venezuela.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Wednesday, 7 July 2021 11:27 (two years ago) link
Official line from the government is that they were mercenaries.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Wednesday, 7 July 2021 11:42 (two years ago) link
The Colombian government has apparently confirmed that some of the mercs arrested are former soldiers.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Friday, 9 July 2021 10:41 (two years ago) link
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/09/colombia-haiti-guns-for-hire-assassination?
― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 10 July 2021 07:34 (two years ago) link
There are claims in the Colombian press that the ex-soldiers were hired by Moise because he didn’t trust his guards and some only arrived after the assassination had taken place.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Saturday, 10 July 2021 16:28 (two years ago) link
The plot to assassinate Haitian President Jovenel Moïse ran through South Florida, according to statements of captured Colombians who said they were hired by a Miami-area security firm.https://t.co/551RqWIm7s— Miami Herald (@MiamiHerald) July 10, 2021
― Joe Bombin (milo z), Saturday, 10 July 2021 20:58 (two years ago) link
Relevant commentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ55CEm6wpY
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Thursday, 27 October 2022 06:25 (one year ago) link