Why Isn't "A Former AttorneyGeneral Accuses Bush Administration of Armed Agression Against A Democratically Elected Leader" A National Headline? Is it because our neocolonial misadventures are now passe, and therefore unnewsworthy; is it because Americans are generally apathetic in regard to foreign policy, or is the corporate-controlled media cherrypicking the UPI stories favorable to the powers that be? "The Bush administration is again engaged in regime change by armed aggression," former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark said. "This time, the armed aggression is against the administration of the democratically elected president of Haiti." Activists at a Friday press briefing outlined what they believe to be a well-crafted plan by the Bush administration to overthrow Aristide. Former Haitian military members, drug dealers and militants were armed and trained in the Dominican Republic thanks to military support from the United States. They have now crossed the border into Haiti, activists said. The rebel insurrection that erupted three weeks ago has left roughly 80 people dead, nearly half of whom were police officers. U.S.-supported coups in Latin America and Africa during the Cold War were referenced by many as models for what they perceive to be the Bush administration's current strategy in Haiti. The Article You'll Never Read in the NY Times, The Washington Post, or the Minneapolis Star-Tribune The only way we'll even approach "the truth" of what's happening in the world is to read a variety of news sources and juxtapose them, taking into consideration the bias of the writer. Media consolidation is limiting the range of perspectives available, and because of this, we're forced to make decisions based on limited empirical observation. ...One question I've had when it comes to U.S. relations with Haiti is "what is the administration's motive"? Have they struck oil in Port Au Prince?