Just a Tale of Inconsistency

[Guest MikeSC]

Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry accused President Bush's administration Thursday of fomenting conflict in Haiti out of ideological opposition to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

 

Kerry called on Bush to name Florida Sen. Bob Graham, one-time rival for the Democratic nomination, to be a special envoy to the Caribbean nation to negotiate a peaceful resolution between Aristide and the rebels threatening to oust him from power.

 

Debating his Democratic rivals Thursday night in Los Angeles, Kerry accused the White House of withholdnig aid to Haiti until the opposition reached a power-sharing agreement with Aristide -- an approach that he said ensured the rebels would keep fighting.

 

''This administration has been engaged in very manipulative and wrongful ways,'' Kerry said. ``They have a theological and an ideological hatred for Aristide. They always have. They approached this so the insurgents were empowered by this administration.''

 

The attacks were brushed aside by Bush aides as a political stunt by Kerry, who needs the support of Caribbean-American voters in Tuesday's New York primary and views the issue as critical to Florida in the general election.

 

But Kerry's attention to the topic was the latest sign that Democrats intend to paint Haiti as another foreign policy failure for an administration under fire for its approach to world affairs.

 

Kerry's leading rival for the nomination, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, said Thursday night that the Haiti crisis was ''so typical of this president's disengagement'' in the hemisphere.

 

PLANNING A TRIP

 

At the same time, the Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights activist who trails far behind Kerry in the presidential race but is angling to collect delegates from a strong showing in his home state of New York, is planning a trip to Haiti in March to highlight Bush's policies.

 

All three said Thursday that they had their concerns about Aristide and his leadership, but that he was democratically elected.

 

And all three criticized Bush administration immigration policies that have led Haitian refugees to be turned back and detained while Cubans are given more freedom to remain if they reach the United States.

 

''We can't have different strokes with different folks at the border in Miami,'' Sharpton said.

 

Strategists on both sides say the Haiti crisis could well become a liability for Bush if an exodus of Haitian refugees lands in Florida, stressing social services in a politically crucial swing state and galvanizing critics of the administration's immigration policies.

 

A Bush spokesman on Thursday accused Kerry of ''grandstanding'' by seizing the issue.

 

`POLITICAL GAIN'

 

''Sen. Kerry is exploiting the situation in Haiti for political gain while the Bush administration is engaged in the real work of diplomacy to find a solution,'' Bush campaign spokesman Reed Dickens said.

 

But with rebels making gains in Haiti and closing in on Aristide, it was clear that the White House has a potential domestic political problem on its hands.

 

Bush's critics on Thursday vowed to draw the distinction between Iraq -- where the United States acted preemptively to remove a dictator and bring democracy -- and Haiti, where a democratically elected leader is under siege and little is being done to stop the opposition.

 

Democrats also noted that Bush's father lost his reelection in 1992 after a coup in Haiti that led to Aristide's removal and eventual chaos.

 

''It's like Ground Hog Day as it relates to the Bush family,'' said U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat who is Kerry's Florida campaign chairman and one of the leading critics of the Bush approach to Haiti.

 

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, likened his envoy proposal for Graham to President Clinton's decision in 1994 to send then-Gen. Colin Powell, former Sen. Sam Nunn and former President Jimmy Carter to help restore democratic rule -- a point clearly designed to draw contrasts with Clinton's foreign policy successes.

 

`GOING TO PAY'

 

''They let the situation disintegrate into civil war,'' said Graham, a potential running mate for Kerry who is expected to endorse the likely nominee next week.

 

``The administration has taken a conscious position of nonengagement in Haiti, and they are going to pay the consequences for it.''

 

The issue is further complicated for Bush by race, with black members of Congress attacking his approach to the Caribbean nation and questioning whether the administration is less committed because its residents are black.

OK, so Bush was wrong to intervene in Iraq without UN mandate --- but he IS supposed to intervene in Haiti without a UN mandate?

 

And, Aristide was "democratically elected"? Umm, wasn't his 2000 election unbelievably corrupt?

 

However, it does seem that Graham might be a favorite to be Kerry's VP nominee.

-=Mike

[C Dubya 04 0]

I think that there's a difference between intervening and going to war. He's not proposing that we attack Haiti is he?

 

(by the way, I resisted the obvious one-liner set-up in your post, but I doubt everyone will)

[NoCalMike 0]

Umm, wasn't his 2000 election unbelievably corrupt?

 

-=Mike

Gee, now why does this remind of something.....

[Guest hunger4unger]

The situation in Iraq and what is going on now in Haiti are two totally different things. Rebels weren't causing problems in Iraq - infact, there wasn't really a problem there, things were fine. (Okay, Saddam murdered some of his own people but that had never been a problem to the outside world until 300 days ago).

 

Ideally, UN forces should really go in and sort the mess out in Haiti or at least assist the Haiti forces in fending off the rebels.

 

Bush and Blair won't lift a finger..there's no financial gain involved.

[Guest Cerebus]

The situation in Iraq and what is going on now in Haiti are two totally different things. Rebels weren't causing problems in Iraq - infact, there wasn't really a problem there, things were fine. (Okay, Saddam murdered some of his own people but that had never been a problem to the outside world until 300 days ago).

 

Ideally, UN forces should really go in and sort the mess out in Haiti or at least assist the Haiti forces in fending off the rebels.

 

Bush and Blair won't lift a finger..there's no financial gain involved.

Edit: Why the fuck should I even bother?

[Guest SP-1]

Theological hatred, eh?

 

I'm sure Kerry knows his Theology in and out.

[Highland 0]

Bush and Blair won't lift a finger..there's no financial gain involved.

 

 

Sad, but true.

[Guest MikeSC]

The situation in Iraq and what is going on now in Haiti are two totally different things. Rebels weren't causing problems in Iraq - infact, there wasn't really a problem there, things were fine. (Okay, Saddam murdered some of his own people but that had never been a problem to the outside world until 300 days ago).

I guess you missed how low Iraq was in the eyes of the world for the last 12 or so years.

 

And, um, doesn't THAT speak REAL well of Bush doing what he did.

 

BTW, if you think things were "fine" in Iraq, then your concept of "fine" has been corrupted beyond repair. When the country lives in fear of the whims of a sociopath, things aren't "fine".

 

Even using humanitarian reasoning, Iraq was a MUCH more deserving target than Haiti.

Ideally, UN forces should really go in and sort the mess out in Haiti or at least assist the Haiti forces in fending off the rebels.

Why? By many accounts, Aristide completely bastardized elections in a way that would make the current Iranian regime proud (let's not even go into THEIR recent election). Why should we support him? Aristide is HARDLY a nice or decent guy.

Bush and Blair won't lift a finger..there's no financial gain involved.

They shouldn't. Aristide should step down and new elections be held. I wouldn't get involved at all until he stepped down.

-=Mike

...Still, I love that you protest Bush involving itself in Iraq when it wasn't a "threat" to us --- but you WANT him to go into Haiti which is even LESS of a threat.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

The day that we caught Saddam, I watched John Kerry go on every news talk show on TV and run down Howard Dean who liked to ask the question "Where's Saddam?" in response to Bush's efforts to catch him. I knew then that Kerry would take Dean out of contention.

 

What Kerry also informed me of, however, is that he is a man with ideas but no plan. He was certain that the US should have taken out Saddam. But he was equally certain that he would not have gone into Iraq without the U.N.

 

This always bothered me...because I don't remember Bush or anyone saying "No guys, I know you want to help...but you stay here". I don't remember telling France and Germany to sit this one out. But Kerry...for whatever reason, thinks that he could have gotten them together before we went in.

 

Now...I've been waiting for a question to be asked since that day. I wish someone would ask it...because I think Kerry's head might explode if he was forced to figure out the riddle that he created.

 

If we HAD TO go in and take out Saddam as he said that day...but we HAD TO get the U.N. to go in on it with us...

 

What would you do if the U.N. didn't want to go?

 

To me, Kerry comes off as weak. and Bush, who I always thought was weak, actually looks strong in retrospect and when compared to Kerry.

 

I think the democrats should consider sitting this one out. They've been making Bush look good for a couple years now...and that's the strangest campaign tactic...