sexta-feira, abril 30, 2004






Nightline Pays Tribute to U.S. Service Members Killed in Iraq

"These people have paid the ultimate price in our name and it's important to remember them, whether you think the price is worth it or not."
Nightline executive producer Leroy Sievers

The Sinclair Broadcast Group ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline" because host Ted Koppel intends to read the names of more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war, as well as more than 200 others who died noncombat deaths. An interview with Koppel.

In North Carolina, Chuck Norman wondered what picture of his son "Nightline" might use. He nearly missed the opportunity to find out. I watch the all program, and you, what did you do when Ted Koppel read the names?



from CNN.com

BUSH EXPRESSES "DEEP DISGUST" AT PRISON PHOTOS

In the face of international outrage, President Bush said Friday that he was disgusted by photographs that apparently show American soldiers abusing detainees at a prison outside Baghdad.

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said. "Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America." (click here)

Really? Soo were they learn from?

...

“These are our fellow soldiers, these are the people we work with every day, they represent us, they wear the same uniform as us, and they let their fellow soldiers down. If we can’t hold ourselves up as an example of how to treat people with dignity and respect, we can’t ask that other nations do that to our soldiers.”

- Big Gen MARK KIMMITT, on criminal charges against six American soldiers accused of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

SEE HOW PROPAGANDA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HUMAN LIVES

To hear North Korea's state media tell it, in the midst of an inferno of exploding rail cars and dying children, several heroic women made the ultimate sacrifice, running into blazing buildings in frantic attempts to save treasured portraits of Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung.

In North Korea, where the state personality cult is stronger than in Mao's China or Stalin's Russia, loyal citizens need no reminder that their leaders are more important than their own children. (click here)



This is a good link about foreign trips inside North Korea in the last decade. Try it!

BY THE WAY...

The Washington Post said that North Korea’s Kim Jong Il is getting bald. Must be true, coming from the paper that exposed President Nixon’s White House tricks (the Watergate stuff, remember?).

But, there are no news that this will affect the WMD and nuclear feud with the U.S. I will keep you posted.

Bill O’Reily, el conocido (y no muy querido) comentarista profundamente reaccionario del canal Fox, anda cabrón con Gary Trudeau y su celebre columna Doonesbury, porque se atrevieron a tocar un tema bien sensible: los heridos en combate en la guerra en Irak.

Pero además con una variante y al parecer hereje: al soldado le han amputado una pierna.

Aparentemente apenas ahora fue que O’Reily se dio cuenta que Trudeau no es conservador y no está dispuesto a dejar un solo tema fuera del debate.

Sobre la bronca, les recomiendo que lean esto que lo debemos a Kim.

Y estas son las tiras que tanto le molestaron:






quinta-feira, abril 29, 2004

«AZNAR ES BASTANTE MEDIOCRE. ES UN FASCISTA SOCIOLóGICO PURO QUE TIENE UNA INCOMPRENSIóN FORMIDABLE DEL MUNDO», DIJO JUAN LUIS CEBRIAN

"Lo que perjudicó al gobierno de José María Aznar definitivamente fue el manejo de la crisis de los cuatro días previos. Está demostrado que su gobierno mintió y manipuló muchísimo"



Silvia Pisani, corresponsal en Madrid del diario La Nación de Buenos Aires, publica una entrevista a Juan Luis Cebrián, en la que el consejero delegado de El País y actual presidente de la AEDE no se muerde la lengua. No se la pierdan.

terça-feira, abril 27, 2004

GADDAFI ARRIVES IN STYLE IN EUROPE



The man and his bodyguards. CNN story.
Her daughter. Other bodyguard. Old TIME.

domingo, abril 25, 2004

25 de Abril Sempre



Hace hoy 30 años que estalló una Revolución en Portugal.

El régimen fascista se vino abajo y comenzamos siendo libres.

He creado una página en este website al respecto que todavia no he terminado, aunque le pueden ir dando un vistazo.

Pienso incluir mis memorias de ese día con una perspectiva que jamás pensé podía asistir. Como vivía en el barrio chic todos los ministros del ancien regime allí estaban ese día haciendo compras con sus mujeres mientras veía como se quedaban desempleados.

25 de Abril Sempre.

sexta-feira, abril 23, 2004

HAY TAMALES QUE MATAN...


quinta-feira, abril 22, 2004

COMMENTARY / JIM DEFEDE

A stilled voice: 'Things must change in Haiti'


The Agronomist, the latest film by Academy Award-winning director Jonathan Demme, opens with the voice of Jean Dominique, Haiti's most famous journalist.

''They try everything,'' Jean says during one of his daily radio programs, ``to gnaw at us, to bury us, to electrocute us, to drown us, to drain us.''

The sound of a toilet flushing is heard on the program, followed by Jean's distinct laugh. ''It's been going on for more than 50 years,'' he continues, ``and why should it stop? They can still try to crush us; to machine-gun us; to ignore, slander, bully and seduce us; to deflate, empty and distort us.''

Again there is the sound of Jean's unmistakable laugh.

Jean Dominique

''It's been going on for more than 50 years,'' he says. ``Is there a reason for it to stop? Yes, one. Things must change in Haiti.''

It's not entirely clear from the movie when that radio clip was produced. Probably sometime in the late '80s or early '90s.

But as is often the case with Haiti, the realities vary little with time. The movie, a rough cut of which was screened last year during the Miami Film Festival, opens this week in theaters across the country.

Demme focuses on the life and death of Jean Dominique, gunned down on April 3, 2000, in the courtyard of his beloved station, Radio Haiti Inter. Michele Montas, Dominique's wife, was in Miami this week for a showing of the film and to be the featured speaker for the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center's annual dinner.

She said Wednesday that even with the departure of Haiti's president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and the advent of foreign troops, ``lawlessness and impunity rule the land.''

The current government, backed by the United States, has made little effort to round up convicted killers and human rights abusers who were set free in recent months, she said. Instead, the country's new prime minister refers to them as ''freedom fighters'' while others in his government suggest pardons for previous acts of mass murder.

There is no real central authority in Haiti. Instead, there are only well-armed factions that control various parts of the country. Pro- and anti-Aristide gangs reign in sections of the capital, along with ghosts of the distant and recent past, the Duvalierists and the Macoutes, the army officers and the members of FRAPH.

''They all are there,'' Montas told me Wednesday. ``They all want a share of power.''

I asked her what she thought of Aristide being forced out of the country. ''Personally, I felt it was necessary that he left,'' she said. ``The spiral of violence was such, and the entrenched positions were such, that I didn't think a political solution was possible.''

Montas believes Aristide lost the support of the people when he began using armed gangs to try to stay in power. Instead of maintaining power, he fueled an opposition set on ousting him. In the end, most Haitians refused to take sides. ''They were no longer going to defend Aristide even though they were also not willing to support the opposition,'' she said. ``I think many people just withdrew. They just wanted the violence to end.''

She, too, became frustrated with Aristide. For the longest time, she said, she did not believe that Aristide had anything to do with her husband's murder. ''Now I'm not so sure,'' she told me. She wonders if he created a climate in Haiti where Jean's murder was an inevitable consequence by not speaking out against violence.

Montas fled Haiti shortly after gunmen tried to kill her as she returned home from Christmas dinner in 2002. One of her bodyguards was killed. She now lives in New York and works for the United Nations. Does she still have hope for Haiti's future?

''It is a difficult question, but I have made a habit out of hope,'' she says. ``So I guess I cling onto it. To me, there are enough resources within the Haitian people for us to bounce back. But it is getting more and more difficult to bounce back.''

As Jean Dominique said: Things must change in Haiti.

© 2004 The Miami Herald

quarta-feira, abril 21, 2004

Le ventre de "une"

EN 1940, PICASSO N'ETAIT PAS DIGNE DE DEVENIR FRANçAIS

Le 3 avril 1940, en pleine "drôle de guerre", Picasso dépose une demande officielle de naturalisation française, fournissant tous les documents et témoignages nécessaires. Le 25 mai, elle lui est refusée, à la suite d'un rapport des renseignements généraux.

Jadis signalé "comme anarchiste", ce "peintre soi-disant moderne" afficherait des idées communistes. "Durant la guerre civile en Espagne, il a envoyé de fortes sommes d'argent aux gouvernementaux." Il aurait même dit qu'il fera de l'URSS son légataire. Conclusion : "Cet étranger n'a aucun titre pour obtenir la naturalisation" et "il doit être considéré comme suspect au point de vue national." Ainsi s'exprime la police de la IIIe République.



Cet épisode, dont l'artiste n'a jamais parlé à ses amis, est révélé par la redécouverte du dossier Picasso de la préfecture de police. Ce dossier, emporté à Berlin avec bien d'autres par les nazis en 1940 ou 1941, saisi par l'armée rouge en 1945, est revenu de Moscou à la suite d'un accord de restitution signé en 1992. 120 cartons au total concernant les étrangers résidant en France et surveillés par la police.

On apprend ainsi que Picasso est dénoncé comme anarchiste dès 1901, parce qu'il loge chez un compatriote, Pere Mañach, qui passe pour rallié à la cause. Mais il y a d'autres preuves : il a peint "un tableau représentant des soldats étrangers frappant un mendiant à terre" et des bourgeois refusant l'aumône "à des mères de famille". Dès 1901, inexorablement, ce soupçon reste dans le dossier. A partir de la guerre d'Espagne et de Guernica, il s'aggrave. Le commissaire du 8e arrondissement a beau affirmer que le locataire de la rue La Boétie est honorablement connu et l'ancien combattant Georges Braque se porter garant, rien n'y fait : Picasso ferait un mauvais Français.

A la Libération, l'artiste aurait obtenu sa naturalisation sans peine, mais il ne l'a plus demandée. Question d'honneur et de solidarité antifranquiste, suggère Pierre Daix dans l'ouvrage très précis qui présente ces documents édifiants. Exposés jusqu'au 15 mai au Musée de la préfecture de police de Paris, ils le seront ensuite dans des commissariats et hôtels de police de plusieurs villes de France.

Philippe Dagen

• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 22.04.04

O PENSAMENTO DO DIA/DAILY THOUGT/LA PENSEE DU JOUR

"La gente buena toma cerveza".

terça-feira, abril 20, 2004

Para los que han entendido, y seguido, la crisis de Radio Martí que El Nuevo Herald me publicó hace casi un año, aquí tienen una caricatura de Varela absolutamente inédita.


segunda-feira, abril 19, 2004

NUEVO LIBRO DE BOB WOODWARD




El Washington Post está publicando los resúmenes del libro. Woodward es conocido por haber destapado el escándalo Watergate junto a Carl Bernstein.

Bernstein y Woodward

Este libro ha comenzado a levantar ronchas, a tal punto que hoy, 24 horas antes del lanzamiento oficial en Estados Unidos, el Pentágono soltó el texto completo de las dos (1) (2) entrevistas que Donald Rumsfeld le dio a Woodward.

Por si la dudas, claro está.


Rumsfeld y Woodward


La critica... del The New York Times - Abril 19, 2004

BOOKS OF THE TIMES | 'PLAN OF ATTACK'

A Heady Mix of Pride and Prejudice Led to War

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

IN HIS engrossing new book, "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward uses myriad details to chart the Bush administration's march to war against Iraq. His often harrowing narrative not only illuminates the fateful interplay of personality and policy among administration hawks and doves, but it also underscores the role that fuzzy intelligence, Pentagon timetables and aggressive ideas about military and foreign policy had in creating momentum for war.

The chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., describes the White House as trying to perform a circus trick of straddling two horses, the horse of war and the horse of diplomacy. It is a task, this book shows, that the White House did with difficulty and at times a good deal of disingenuousness, with the horse of war rapidly outpacing the horse of diplomacy. It is also a White House committed to the "vision thing" in a big way (promoting risky, sweeping ideas like exporting democracy and pre-emptive war) and the avoidance of any perception of wimpiness, a White House in many ways determined to avoid accusations once hurled at the president's father.

"Plan of Attack" reveals that President George W. Bush asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Nov. 21, 2001, to start a war plan for Iraq, and to do so in secret because a leak could trigger "enormous international angst and domestic speculation." Among the first to express angst was Gen. Tommy Franks, who got the Iraq assignment while he was busy prosecuting the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.



The book also reveals that the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, told President Bush in December 2002 that intelligence about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk," but later told associates that he and the C.I.A. should have stated up front in that fall's National Intelligence Estimate and other reports that the evidence was not ironclad, that there was no smoking gun.

In addition "Plan of Attack" ratifies assertions made in two recent controversial books. It corroborates the observation made by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (in Ron Suskind's book "The Price of Loyalty") that Iraq was high on the Bush administration's agenda before 9/11, in fact from its very first days in office. And echoing accusations made by the former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke (in his book "Against All Enemies"), it contends that prior to 9/11 Mr. Bush was focusing on domestic issues and a large tax cut and had "largely ignored the terrorism problem."

In the wake of Mr. Woodward's best-selling 2002 book "Bush at War" — which presented a laudatory portrait of Mr. Bush as a fearless and determined leader after 9/11 — the president agreed to be interviewed in depth by the author about how and why he decided to go to war against Iraq. Mr. Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, says the president also made it clear that he wanted administration members to talk with him, and that he interviewed more than 75 key players.

Thanks to this wide access, "Plan of Attack" has a more choral-like narrative than many of the author's earlier books, which tended to spin scenes from the point of view of his most voluble sources. And while Mr. Woodward — who has long specialized in forward-leaning narratives that are long on details and scoops, and short on analysis — does not delve into the intellectual and political roots of the war cabinet, he does pause every now and then to put his subjects' actions and statements into perspective. The resulting volume is his most powerful and persuasive book in years.

In reporting that General Franks said in September 2002 that his people had been "looking for Scud missiles and other weapons of mass destruction for 10 years and haven't found any yet," Mr. Woodward adds: "It could, and should, have been a warning that if the intelligence was not good enough to make bombing decisions, it probably was not good enough to make the broad assertion, in public or in formal intelligence documents, that there was `no doubt' Saddam had WMD." Vice President Dick Cheney had done exactly that just days before.

Later Mr. Woodward observes that Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the president in January 2003 that military action against Iraq would leave the United States responsible for rebuilding the country and dealing with whatever global fallout the invasion might cause, but adds that the president never asked his top diplomat for advice, and that Mr. Powell never volunteered any. "Perhaps the president feared the answer," Mr. Woodward writes. "Perhaps Powell feared giving it. It would, after all, have been an opportunity to say he disagreed. But they had not gotten to that core question, and Powell would not push."

In contrast Mr. Woodward describes Mr. Cheney as having been a "powerful, steamrolling force" for military intervention, "a rock," in President Bush's words, who was "steadfast and steady in his view that Saddam was a threat to America and we had to deal with him." The "self-appointed special examiner of worst-case scenarios," Mr. Cheney, who had been defense secretary during the first gulf war in 1991, harbored "a deep sense of unfinished business about Iraq," Mr. Woodward writes, and in January 2001, before the inauguration, he passed a message to the outgoing defense secretary, William S. Cohen, stipulating that Topic A in Mr. Bush's foreign policy briefing should be Iraq.

Woodward on Larry King Show

During the buildup to war, this book contends, tensions between Mr. Powell and Mr. Cheney grew so toxic that the two men "could not, and did not, have a sit-down lunch or any discussion about their differences." Mr. Powell is described as thinking that the vice president had an unhealthy fixation on Saddam Hussein and was constantly straining to draw (unproven) connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq. As Mr. Woodward puts it: "Powell thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact."

As for Mr. Cheney, he reportedly complains to hawkish friends — at a dinner party he and his wife gave on April 13, 2003, to celebrate the Marines' arrival in Baghdad — that Mr. Powell "always had major reservations about what we were trying to do." He and his friends are described as chuckling about the secretary of state, whom Mr. Cheney characterizes as someone interested in his own poll ratings and popularity.

President Bush, the object of so much jockeying for position among cabinet members, emerges from this book as a more ambiguous figure than the commanding leader portrayed by Mr. Woodward in "Bush at War." In some scenes he is depicted as genuinely decisive (as in his choice to go to United Nations in 2002). In others he seems merely childish (eyeing Gen. Henry Shelton's peppermint during a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, until the general passed it over.)

Sometimes Mr. Bush comes across as instinctive and shrewd (dismissing a C.I.A. presentation on weapons of mass destruction as "not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from"). Sometimes he sounds petulant and defensive (saying of Mr. Powell, "I didn't need his permission" to go to war). And sometimes he simply seems like someone trying to live up to the "Persona" outlined by his political adviser Karl Rove in a campaign brief: a "Strong Leader" with a penchant for "Bold Action" and "Big Ideas."

Mr. Bush and the people around him — most notably Mr. Rove, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz — are constantly talking about the importance of showing resolve, of standing firm, of talking the talk and walking the walk. And as plans for war advance, this posture becomes part of the momentum toward war. As Mr. Bush himself says of the weeks leading up to the war: "I began to be concerned at the blowback coming out of America: `Bush won't act. The leader that we thought was strong and straightforward and clear-headed has now got himself in a position where he can't act.' And it wasn't on the left. It was on the right."

Adding to the war momentum was the growing buildup of troops in the Iraq theater, the approach of hot weather in the gulf (which would make military operations more difficult), promises made to allies like Saudi Arabia (Prince Bandar, Mr. Woodward reveals, was told of the president's decision to go to war before Colin Powell was) and risky C.I.A. operations in the region.

Bush and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia Ambassador to the US, at Camp David

In the final walkup to war, Mr. Bush repeatedly asks associates: "What's my last decision point?" "When have I finally made a commitment?" Mr. Rumsfeld eventually tells the president, "The penalty for our country and for our relationships and potentially the lives of some people are at risk if you have to make a decision not to go forward."

By January 2003, this book reports, Mr. Bush had made up his mind to take military action, but the book also suggests that that decision was far from inevitable, given the many vagaries of intelligence findings, domestic and international politics, and the personalities and maneuverings of the people closest to the president.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

sábado, abril 17, 2004

NO COMMENT!

sexta-feira, abril 16, 2004

THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

PARDON?

The New Yorker

Alain de Chalvron, the Washington bureau chief for France 2, the French equivalent of the BBC, hasn’t had an easy time since he came to America, last fall. He has had to endure a predictable barrage of remarks regarding freedom fries, Old Europe, and the “Axis of Weasel,” along with a reticent White House, which has made it hard for foreign journalists to get briefings. So when John Kerry became the front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination de Chalvron and other French journalists in Washington were understandably excited. They knew about Kerry: he went to a Swiss boarding school, he has a cousin who ran for the French Presidency, and he supposedly wooed Teresa Heinz by impressing her with his fluent French.

For a time, Kerry seemed equally enthusiastic about the French reporters covering his campaign. “He was quite accessible in Iowa and New Hampshire,” de Chalvron said the other day, in his office in Washington. “He understands French very well. His words are correct and sometimes even sophisticated. I asked him, ‘How can you have this life? It must be terrible, crisscrossing the country.’ Kerry answered, ‘C’est affreux’—‘It’s awful.’” De Chalvron’s voice rose with admiration. “Affreux, it’s not a very usual word. It’s something a French person can use easily, but Kerry could have said, ‘Yes, it’s terrible,’ instead of going to pick a more difficult word.”

Teresa and John

Everything changed, though, when, in recent months, Republicans started intimating that Kerry was too Continental. Conservatives complained about his touting of endorsements from foreign leaders, and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans told reporters that Kerry “looks French.” Right-wing talk-show hosts began referring to him as “Monsieur Kerry” and “Jean Cheri.” A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that G. Clotaire Rapaille, a French anthropologist known for identifying the subconscious associations that people from various cultures make in the “reptilian” part of their brains, had offered to become the Senator’s Gallic Naomi Wolf, devising ways for him to rid his speaking style of French influences.

Suddenly, Kerry appeared to develop linguistic amnesia. “During a press conference, I asked Kerry a question, on Iraq,” de Chalvron recalled. “He didn’t answer. In front of the American journalists, he didn’t want to take a question that was not in English.” Loïck Berrou, the United States bureau chief for de Chalvron’s competitor, TF1, has been having similar problems. Berrou chatted in French with Kerry on a commercial flight last year; the Senator reminisced about his family’s country house in Saint-Briac-sur-Mer, a village in Brittany, where Kerry’s cousin is the mayor. “We’ve pushed hard to get an interview with him, and no answer,” Berrou says.

Family members have apparently been put on a leash as well. Kerry’s wife, Berrou says, “speaks with us in French with no problem, and her press attaché has to pull her by the shirt to get her away from us.”

The English-only rule doesn’t seem to hold when Kerry is speaking off the record. On his campaign plane recently, he carried on a lively conversation with de Chalvron in French. The other day, in his office, de Chalvron showed footage of Kerry bringing hot towels to foreign journalists in the back of the plane and bantering with Parisian reporters about his chances. De Chalvron was perplexed. “For us, to speak any other language and have an open view of the world, for a President, should be a plus,” he said.

As for an on-the-record interview, de Chalvron is still trying, but Kerry’s campaign has not responded. He did, however, recently land an interview with Pat Robertson, who told him, “Jean François Kerry will never be elected.”

— Joshua Kurlantzick

quarta-feira, abril 07, 2004

... EL HOMENAJE DE UN CARICATURISTA CUBANO (Garrincha) A CHARLIE BROWN...


sexta-feira, abril 02, 2004

Esta historia no la pueden perder. ¡Créanlo!

Bush speaks, a boy yawns, then Letterman and CNN get confused
By FRAZIER MOORE/Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) What began on David Letterman's "Late Show'' as a comedy bit needling President Bush turned into a comedy of errors when CNN incorrectly reported that the White House had cried foul.

Then Letterman … apparently not getting CNN's message that it had made the mistake until he was well into his Tuesday broadcast … only heightened the confusion.

The whole thing started during a collection of video clips Letterman showed Monday under the label "George W. Bush Invigorates America's Youth.''

One showed Bush at a March rally in Orlando, Fla., standing at a lectern with several listeners behind him … among them, a boy in his early teens who could barely stay awake. While Bush spoke, the young man yawned, twisted his head, checked his watch and generally seemed dead on his feet.



Tuesday morning, CNN attempted to lighten its news mood by running the segment, credited to CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman,'' on its "CNN Live Today.''

But then CNN host Daryn Kagan added: îîWe're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting.''

Later, during CNN's "Live From ...,'' anchor Kyra Phillips reran the tape but cautioned viewers: "We're told that the kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president.''

The truth was: The White House never complained, and the footage was real.

So is the lad: 13-year-old Tyler Crotty, son of Orange County Chairman and Bush supporter Rich Crotty, who Wednesday took full responsibility for Tyler's sleep deprivation, telling the Orlando Sentinel: "His mother was out of town, and I let him stay up too late (the night before).''

On his Tuesday telecast, Letterman aired Kagan's and Phillips' skeptical remarks and ranted: "An out-and-out, 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape. ...

"So when you cast your vote in November,'' he urged, "just remember that the White House was trying to make ME look like a DOPE.''

By then, CNN had owned up to its mistake, and placed a call to Letterman's New York headquarters before the 5:30 p.m. taping began. But the tape was already rolling before Letterman got the word.

"According to this,'' he said during the show, referring to an index card in his grasp, "CNN has just phoned and ... the anchorwoman misspoke. They never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake.''

So then he wailed: "Now I've called the White House liars, and you know what that means … they're going to start looking into my taxes!''

Though CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that "we frequently air late-night comedy show clips,'' on Thursday she confirmed the "misunderstanding among our staff'' surrounding the yawning-boy video.

Meanwhile, Kagan made an on-air show of contrition.

"Dave, we apologize for the error,'' she said, offering to come on his show for a Stupid Human Trick.

AP-ES-04-01-04 1349EST

Una bella imagen de la costa occidental cubana