Minette Bacchus’ shamelessly convenient reasoning and typical cherry-picking

Jul 16, 2013 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,
Unlike Freddie Kissoon, I will not relent to the shamefully convenient reasoning of Minette Bacchus. Her intellectual debauchery must be exposed. Her letter titled “Opportunists continue to cannibalise Rodney’s name to ensure their relevance” (KN, July 6, 2013) is supposed to be a response to mine titled “Here are the facts that support Burnham’s involvement in Rodney’s assassination” (KN, July 1, 2013). Instead, in typical cherry-picking fashion, Bacchus shamelessly omits to address the following critical points from my letter:
(1) Rodney being conveniently killed before Burnham’s new absolute presidential power constitution promulgated later in 1980;
(2) Rodney’s intact body after the bombing and his brother Donald’s minor injuries confirming a small bomb blast force incapable of destroying a metal prison fence;
(3) Burnham’s knowledge that Rodney was secretly using walkie-talkie sets and knew this was one way to kill Rodney because PNC security forces had seized two sets from his home in a July 1979 raid;
(4) Absolutely nothing on Gregory Smith’s interactions with Rodney, his military status and GDF Badge No. 4141 and his secretion away by the GDF to Kwakwani and his smuggling to French Guiana within days of Rodney’s death;
(5) Utterly nothing on Smith’s girlfriend getting employment within a Guyana embassy in Canada after Rodney’s death;
(6) Nothing on the formation of the WPA two months before Burnham’s shakeup of the military leadership on July 12, 1979, to install his loyalists;
(7) The fact that security personnel in close proximity to Rodney that fateful night offer yet another opportunity for a remote trigger of the walkie-talkie bomb;
(8) Rodney’s vehicle parked one block away from the jail; and
(9) Rodney was instructed by Smith to peer into the walkie-talkie which would have blown his head off and made him unrecognizable but he didn’t.
Bacchus cannot begin to engage my letter unless she addresses these germane and pivotal points in her retort.
I will delve into the fallacious arguments and baseless contentions of the issues Bacchus actually responded to at a later time but for now, I need to highlight fundamental tenets of Bacchus’ academic dishonesty.
Bacchus states in her letter, “Consequently, Maxwell’s quoted arguments are presented adjacent to mine and readers will determine…” Yet, she proceeds to omit critical and contextually vital portions of my statements in abject and nefarious fashion.
I am going to highlight the fraudulent rottenness of this atrocity. Bacchus quotes me as follows at Point 3 of her letter as follows: “…Burnham replaced the armed forces leadership with his loyalists…. four WPA activists were killed by the Burnhamite-controlled security forces (Ohene Koama on November 18, 1979, Claude Bovell on November 18, 1979 and Edward Dublin on February 29, 1980). Within 13 months of its formation, the WPA suffered the most casualties.”
Here is my original quote with the bolded portions that Bacchus cunningly excised: “The WPA threatened Burnham when it became a political entity in May 1979. Three months later, in August 1979, Burnham replaced the armed forces leadership with his loyalists. Between November 1979 to Rodney’s death on June 13, 1980, four WPA activists were killed by the Burnhamite-controlled security forces (Ohene Koama on November 18, 1979, Claude Bovell on November 18, 1979 and Edward Dublin on February 29, 1980). Within 13 months of its formation, the WPA suffered the most casualties of any political party in Guyana’s history.”
In fact, the army’s leadership shakeup occurred on July 12, 1979, a mere two months after the WPA became a political party.
The farce continues here again where Bacchus quotes me as follows at Point 5 of her letter: “Burnham defenders say Rodney had an accident and blew himself up….Rodney’s death was no accident. Logically, it can only be an accident if Rodney knew he was holding a bomb. No rational human being…knowingly tests a live bomb that could be remotely triggered in the enclosed space of a car…”
Again, she butchers my quote out of what can only be blind treachery. Here is my original statement with the highlighted omissions: “The Burnham defenders say Rodney had an accident and blew himself up (see Forbes Burnham’s statement from 2.46 to 3.22 of the You Tube video titled ‘War Stories Trailers’ posted by Mykal Cushnie). Rodney’s death was no accident. Logically, it can only be an accident if Rodney knew he was holding a bomb. No rational human being, after losing three of his bodyguards and lieutenants, knowingly tests a live bomb that could be remotely triggered in the enclosed space of a car (a luxury in those days) and in the company of his beloved brother.”
Bacchus’ nasty subterfuge in deleting reference to the source where Burnham’s statement can be verified independently by readers was repeated at Point 15 where she omits my ‘see above’ reference to the You Tube source. I see this as a fraudulent attempt to deny readers who are picking up this debate for the first time by reading Bacchus’ letter access to the You Tube source of Burnham’s comments. Her deliberate mangling of the rest of my statement at Point 5 is evident for its nefariousness.
Bacchus’ Machiavellian filthiness continues with another rendition of my quote at Point 9 of her letter as follows: “In a country notorious for lax police response…personnel reached the explosion within minutes…Death Squad members were seen double parked near the jail just before the bombing.”
My actual quote is here with the missing parts highlighted “In a country notorious for lax police response, a large group of Death Squad and security personnel reached the explosion within minutes. Two Colt vans carrying Death Squad members were seen double parked near the jail just before the bombing.”
Bacchus’ exasperating and shameless chicanery continues at Point 12 of her response when she quotes me correctly as follows “WPA press release dated June 17, 1980 said a senior PNC security official was overheard around 8.45 pm at a party stating he was leaving to meet with Burnham and other PNC heavyweights because Rodney was killed.” Then at Point 13 she quotes me correctly as follows “The only plausible explanation is to cover up the killing. Burnham was in Guyana when Rodney died.”
What Bacchus conveniently omitted is the sentence between Points 12 and 13. This sentence states “Clearly, if we believe this statement, Burnham knew it was Rodney who was killed yet his government issued propaganda to the contrary at 6 am the following morning.”
Incidentally, the editor of this newspaper wrote a magnificent editorial titled “Trying to change history” (KN, July 7, 2013) in which he most poignantly pontificated “Sometimes there have been omissions to the point that when what was omitted is taken into consideration the recorded history is changed, dramatically.”
This is what Bacchus attempted here. It is intellectual artifice when omissions this glaring and underhanded are committed. It not only distorts history in dramatic fashion, it necrotizes the very essence of the debate that is vital to telling history. In a country like Guyana where illiteracy is rampant, where history has already suffered from callous distortion, where many seek enlightenment in these newspaper pages and where political immorality has strangled the nation’s consciousness into a fatalistic paralysis, Bacchus’ intellectual amorality and cherry-picking quote-mangling debauchery cannot be allowed. It is roguish primitivism at best and at worst, my thoughts on this deviousness are of the un-publishable variety.
M. Maxwell

 

 

---

---