The Choiseul PowerHouse is “powering ahead” in Cyberspace with the speed of light. Some claim we are hard-hitting and controversial; some claim we are intellectual and academic! Some even claim we are political! Everybody is right! We are all of those things! We have a diverse global audience and it is our pleasure to stimulate your intellectual taste buds and we make no apologies for that. The bottomline is we are independent and have no affinity to any organisation: political or otherwise! We will continue to publish our "power articles"

We wish to extend special thanks to followers for their support. We also encourage you to post your comments and feedback on the Blog using the comments link following the Articles.

Welcome to the POWERHOUSE family blog!

Tuesday, September 27, 2011


“It’s my understanding – and that’s one of my disappointments in all of this – that this actually transpired quite some time before we heard about it.”- Tucker

That’s how Tucker “de-manti” his partner Richard; and Richard will eventually find out that he can’t take anything the foreign minister says “to the bank”. He may wish to use “Spider” as a reference in that regard.

It is apparent that in his attempt to avoid full disclosure on the visa revocation issue, Richard has been hiding behind a mountain of untruths and conspiracy theories. However, the conspiracy theories are pointing to a naked truth which Richard is eager to hide at all costs. Like a cornered Pit bull, Richard is firing at everybody in all directions citing conspiracy theories as the basis for the revocation of his visas. He pretty well knows the diplomatic protocol of the US State Department precludes any public disclosure about him. Unless a smart investigative journalist had perchance made the discovery, if Janine had not, then there’s a possibility that we would have never known the truth for a long, long time.

Let us look at the general trajectory of Richard’s defense since the disclosure was made. When the news was broken to him, he denied any knowledge about it and he said he was shocked. One week later on his “Can I help you” show, he revealed that he received confirmation of the revocation of his visas; but he never got notice of the intention of the revocation. He said he did not know of the reasons for the revocation of his visas. He has invariably blamed the revocation on third parties, citing conspiracy theories as the major thrust of his attacks. The question therefore is: if he knows “WHO” caused the revocation of his visas, then why he does not know “WHY” the revocation happened? I guess we will have to wait a couple more months for Mr Assange to tell us the truth.

I don’t believe Bousquet’s double-entendre pronouncements. He said, he was aware that the revocation “actually transpired quite some time before we heard about it”. It’s ironic that he was able put a time-lime on WHEN the revocation happened but he claimed he never knew that it happened. That is obviously a half-truth! I believe Bousquet would have had knowledge of the matter by virtue of his position as foreign minister, unless the Americans did not trust or recognize him in that capacity because of his own “persona non-grata” position in the US. Nonetheless, I believe that he had both knowledge and understanding of the revocation; but he wanted to protect Richard to protect his own self.

In addition to highlighting a fundamental constitutional/democratic flaw, the visa revocation issue has taught us a very important lesson.  The constitutional flaw has allowed an issue of high profile, national importance to turn on conjecture and spin; and not fact and truth.

The Richard Frederick visa revocation controversy has presented us with an opportunity to strengthen our democracy by amending our constitution to include a provision for public hearings to investigate critical “public stakeholder” issues which may adversely impact the governance of the country.  I am talking about a provision which makes it compulsory for parliamentarians/Ministers of government and senior public servants to testify under oath before a parliamentary and/or the integrity commission (headed by an independent High Court judge) to facilitate honest disclosures on a range of critical matters of national importance. Ministers escape with murder when it comes to disclosures.  I believe this mechanism would give meaning to accountability and transparency which remain largely theoretical concepts in our fledgling democracy. Ministers must realize that their “knowledge and understanding” of public issues/phenomena are not their personal preserve; but the property of the public they serve.

No comments:

Post a Comment