# what really going on in Haiti



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

THE BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS AND HAITI

Now we have U.S. Marines on the ground in Haiti. To be perfectly blunt, I don't believe that Haiti is worth the life of one single American Marine. That dog-squeeze of a country needs to be colonized.

Here's an idea ... Let's tell the United Nations that their lease on the East River property is up ... and that their new home is Haiti. The Roman Catholic Church has the Vatican .. it's own sovereign nation. Let's give the UN Haiti. It's all theirs. Have a blast.

You do notice, of course, that Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus have their stretch pants in a wad over what's goin' down in Haiti. The caucus almost unanimously agreed that American troops needed to go in there, sooner rather than later, and set things right.

Interesting, isn't it. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus are just as opposed to using military force to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein as they are to use our armed forces to save Aristide's corrupt posterior. Surely you don't wonder why. One word ... race. Haiti is a black nation ... and that is all the excuse the caucus needs to send our troops in. Just call it what it is.

The latest? Now Aristide is saying that the U.S. Military forced him out .. and, once again, it was because of race. As Aristide puts it ... "white American, white military." Maybe Aristide is upset because he didn't get to take all of his money with him. *Here is a man who was a Catholic Priest ... vow of poverty and all that. *He becomes politically active, is elected president of Haiti, and *ends up being the richest man in Haiti. How do you do that? *
Who are you going to believe? George Bush and Colin Powell, or former Haitian dictator Jean Bertrand-Aristide? That's right, former dictator. The Democrats are running around calling Aristide the "democratically elected leader" of Haiti. Of course, this isn't true...the elections in 2000 that put him in office have long been denounced by many as fraudulent and rigged. So why is it then that the Congressional Black Caucus held a press conference yesterday blasting the administration for "kidnapping" Aristide? Why politics, of course. 

*Aristide is only alive because the United States provided him safe passage into exile*. He is now calling everyone who will listen to spread lies about how he got there. From Jesse Jackson to the Congressional Black Caucus, he's really working the lines from his new home in the Central African Republic. His version of events go like this: he was sitting in his Presidential palace minding his own business when the "white military" knocked down the door, forced him to sign his resignation at gunpoint, and then threatened to shoot him if he didn't come with them to the airport. Yeah right...dry that one out and you could fertilize the lawn.

The truth is much different. According to Secretary Powell, Aristide called a US Ambassador on Saturday and decided that resigning was the best course of action. The U.S. then leased a jet and worked the phones to find a nation that would take him in exile. Aristide was escorted by his personal security detail to the airport, where he flew out the country. Even the communications minister for the Central African Republic where Aristide was taken says that the kidnapping claim is "absolutely false."

The solution? How about the U.S. Military simply go over there to Africa, scoop Aristide up, and then deposit him right back in the middle of the Haitian Capital. There ... all fixed up.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> That dog-squeeze of a country needs to be colonized.


Bobm,
You are getting a little reactionary, aren't you? Do you have a white cape and hood hiding somewhere in you closet?



RC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Come on Robert I would expect much better than that. Look at Haiti for my entire adult lifetime its been a disaster. They just aren't able to govern themselves. The cycle keeps repeating itself even your buddy Clinton tried to solve it ( to his credit). At some point you have to admit the obvious. And your comment about the cape and hood is consistant with the reaction liberals give to anyone that critcally analizes a situation that blacks are involved in. Most of that black caucus are phonies that don't really speak for the betterment of good blacks and that comment is often made by successful blacks down here in Georgia of which there are many. You really ought to be embarrassed to say that to me.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm,
Maybe I come on a little strong here. But calling a country a turd that should be colonized is hardly critical analysis. I agree with your assessment of the black caucus to a point. They are just itching to play the race card, but do so while lining their coffers with $$ from the "man that is keeping them down."

Aristide had to go, that is for sure. It will be intersting to see what type of puppet government we install in his place and how long it will last before corruption. What fascinates me is when you look at a map of Haiti and look right next door you see the Domincan Republic. We don't hear much about them in the news. Maybe Haiti could learn a lesson from their neighbors to the east?

I have comments consistent with liberals and you have comments consistent with conservatives, go figure?

:beer:

RC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

"I have comments consistent with liberals and you have comments consistent with conservatives, go figure?" :lol: now your talking! I stand by my comments about Haiti, ( its a cesspool of corruption) and my assessment of the black caucus is deadon. 
I think since Al Sharpton wants to be president we should colonize Haiti and appoint Al to the presidents job. In fact we could maybe get the black caucaus to go down there with him and they could be the Haitian congress. It would be the perfect oppotunity for them to apply all the ideas they claim we are not applying in the US and show us how it should be done. And then the vast majority of good blacks back here could maybe get some good representation, when they got rid of the race baters.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm, Why is Haiti not worth an American marine life, but Iraq is? A few weeks ago, we interacted on a post regarding Iraq, and I was blasted because I stated that ousting Saddam was not worth a single American life. I stated that Saddam was Iraq's problem, not ours. However, you stated that even though Iraq didn't have WMDs or have anything to do with 9/11, it was our duty as a superpower to free oppressed people and get rid of nasty dictators. Even after we have ousted Saddam and killed his sons, we are still there to set up a democratic regime.

Now we have Haiti. We have an ousted dictator (your word) and civil unrest. Why is is justified for our troops to be in Iraq and not Haiti? Both countries have an ousted dictator and civil unrest.

Like I have stated earlier, people who support wars to oust dictators are either in the dictator-ousting buisness or they aren't.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Three reasons
1) first and foremost haiti is not a threat to us they don't support terrorism, in fact unlike the oil rich Saddam they couldn't afford to fund terrorists if they wanted to.
2) Haitis plight has no effect on the free flow of oil,and they are inconsequential to the world economy and its politics. Even the Balck causus wouldn't give a rip if it wasn't a election year. There are many black African nations in worse shape, both from a humanitarian and economic sense, you don't here much from them( black caucus) about that.
3)they don't have a dictator raping and murdering thousands of innocent people, he is just stealing them blind and they obviously got tired of them and ran him off without anybodys help something Saddams ironfisted regime wouldn't allow.
As Aristide again heads into exile having left his country in shambles thanks to his erratic behavior and anti-democratic rule, it is time to 
say "good riddance". Clinton deployed troops to Haiti on Aristide's behalf because he was a darling of the American left, which he remains despite a disastrous interlude in power. President Bush is being assailed as a betrayer of democracy and Colin Powell as a betrayer of blacks ("an immoral traitor to his race," according to activist Randall Robinson) for giving Aristide a shove out the door.
*For anyone who truly cares about Haiti, however, Aristide's departure is a case of double good riddance*. His ouster is an act of political hygiene that at least creates the chance -- Las Vegas odds-makers still wouldn't rate it a good one -- for a better future in the tiny Caribbean nation.
Aristide made his own mess. The Organization of American States pronounced his 2000 re-election fraudulent, a judgment accepted by nearly everyone. Aristide repeatedly refused to follow through on commitments to reform, working to consolidate his power instead. As the Haitian National Police dissolved under the pressure of its own corruption, Aristide began to rely on gangs to work his will. Hence, a seed of the current rebellion.
Former Aristide gangs, outraged that he allegedly ordered the assassination of one of their leaders, rose up against him. They were joined by right-wing gangs, as the country steadily slipped out of the unpopular Aristide's control. The democratic opposition got caught in the middle. The situation was intolerable so long as Aristide remained in power.
This wasn't a "unilateral" determination by the Bush administration. None of the important international players wanted to commit troops to Haiti with Aristide in office. "Everyone said we're not going to send a dollar or person to save this crumbling regime," says Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who has been active in Haitian diplomacy. *It's no accident that a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing troops passed the same day Aristide left with a one-way ticket to the Central African Republic.*
Bush critics complain that Aristide wasn't given enough aid. By the end almost all assistance to Haiti was being funneled through nongovernmental groups, because no one trusted the government. The OAS and the European Union, especially the French, didn't want to hand aid over to a corrupt regime. The United States withheld certain aid, but didn't cut it off entirely ($71 million in bilateral aid last year), continuing a stream of assistance that has been generous by any standard.
*Since 1994, the United States has spent $850 million on Haiti. If you count money spent on U.S. troops in the country and on repatriation of refugees, the figure is roughly $3 billion. [/b If that's not a commitment to a country, I don't know what is, but nothing will satisfy the black caucus because they don't really care about Haiti its just a political game to them.

With Aristide gone and the rebellion subsiding, the United States will try to restore constitutional government in Haiti. The chief justice of the supreme court has stepped into the presidency, as stipulated in the constitution. The international community will work to find a consensus choice for prime minister and then set a timetable for elections.
So, the Bush administration has helped depose a corrupt autocrat, avoided a refugee crisis and forged international agreement on a path for the post-Aristide future. Even the UN and the French agree with me and thats got to be a first :lol: And I still know as does the rest of the world including the anti - american UN that Saddam had WMD's which I guess again I have to point out he used on his own people the Kurds, thats a fact and not disputable.*


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm: We are going to agree to disagree on Bush's foreign policy and the use of U.S. military forces (i.e. U.S. lives) for these types of actions. To respond to your post:

1. I don't think that Iraq was any more of a threat to us than Haiti. We have no evidence that Saddam had WMDS, had a plan to deploy them against us, or had anything to do with 9/11. He was contained, plain and simple.

2. A war to protect access to oil is just as repulsive than a war to oust a dictator that didn't need ousting. Why are folks so locked into thinking our only option for energy is fossil fuels? I guess you can't expect anything better from Texan with oil interests. Are you willing to sacrifice a son or daughter so that you can put cheap gas into your SUV? I'm not, and I refuse to put a price on a human life

Your president just got us into two pickles with no clear mission and no clear timelines for completion. We have two ousted dictators from countries without histories of democratic governments, we have the world watching us stick our noses into the activities of other SOVEREIGN nations, and we have no clear plan for where we go from here.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy you cannot face reality
1) pictures of thousands of dead kurds killed with WMDs ( poison gas) by Saddam are not debateable how the hell can you be so blind?
2) if you think we can get by without oil once again you prove you're irrationally naive. I would support getting off the oil dependency but currently we need the oil period. *If you want to live your life in a idealist bubble fine I prefer reality!* How many lives would be lost in the US if the oil supply was cut off??
3)*the US did not oust aristide *it was his decision he could of stayed, all the USA did was find him a place to hide so he wouldn't get killed along with a bunch of innocent people


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

UNITED NATIONS: IRAQ HAD NO WMD AFTER 1994

A report was released by the United Nations yesterday that will say that there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994. OK .... since we know beforehand that this is certainly going to be used by the pro-Saddam left *like Big Daddy *against George Bush, let's look at the facts.

If Iraq had no WMD after 1994, then what were they hiding? Every time inspectors would come around, it was known from satellite photos that the Iraqis were moving cargo and vehicles whenever the inspectors would come around. Then, Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors in 1998. If he had no banned weapons, then what was he hiding? Why was he trying to keep the inspectors out of certain areas? Can't you just hear Saddam speaking to his inner circle? "If we allow these inspections to continue they're going to find out that we don't have any prohibited weapons, so we must stop the inspections immediately." *Yeah ... that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?*
If Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction after 1994, he simply could have thrown open the doors to every facility in Iraq and allowed the inspectors to complete their work, and eventually the sanctions would have been lifted. If Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, he would still be in office. And finally whether or not Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction and when they had them means nothing at this point.

*It is absolutely astounding that the United Nations, the liberals like Big Daddy and their buddies in the media refuse to believe Iraqis are better off without the mass graves and rape rooms of Saddam Hussein*. Their irrational hatred of George Bush will keep them from seeing the truth even if you rub their noses in it, this is why we must reelect George Bush if the liberals apologists like Big Daddy get control of this government we will all be in danger.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Bob does hati have ducks ???

Is there anything there we can hunt ???

I say give it to Cuba :roll:


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

The General gets my vote


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fetch admit it you like to read my stuff :lol: , agree or not its a good break from the incessant Minneasota sucks rant isn't it!. :beer:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Funny, I've never thought of myself of liberal, but I sure appear liberal compared to some people. The point is, your stance with Haiti is inconsistent.

Saddam killed many of his people with guns, chemical weapons, and other nasty means. That, to you, justifies an American presence in Iraq to establish a new, democratic government.

Aristide killed many of his people with negligence and social injustice. Many people in that country died because of inadequate food, inadequate sanitary conditions, and poor medical care. Aristide did not kill them with guns, but he did kill them through his actions (or inactions) as a dictator. However, that does not justify an American presence in Haiti to establish a new, democratic government.

The main difference in these two situations is that one ruler was ousted by U.S. via a preemptive, unjustified war, and one was ousted by his own people. Now, I ask you, which action was more just?

The second difference is that one country has oil reserves that we want to get our hands on, while the other country has little to offer us.

What else don't I understand?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The only thing you're right about is we want /and we need the oil /and if get our hands on it means buy it at the world price then you are finally seeing the truth (praise the lord).  Please don't claim we are going to seize it because there is no historical proof of that, quite the contrary.
I'm not surprised you would not want to see an " democratic government" established in Haiti, but what can I say? 
I'm glad to see you finally admit that the people of Haiti ousted Aristide themselves though instead of blaming in on the Us government your so critical of! Ask Clinton why he tried to establish a democratic government in Haiti. I'm the one who said Haiti isn't capable of governing themselves, and forty years of recent history proves that I'm right. 
Your statement "The second difference is that one country has oil reserves that we want to get our hands on, while the other country has little to offer us. " is exactly what I said in my post above, I'm glad to see your finally seeing the light and agreeing with me on that also. I feel like I'm finally getting somewhere, maybe there is hope for you yet :lol: :lol:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm: Now the truth is finally coming out! OK, we've established to date that the war in Iraq was about punishment for 9/11 or because Saddam had WMDs. We can add to that excuse number 3 which was to oust a dictator and establish a democratic regime.

The war in Iraq was about our dependence on Iraq's oil. Now I get it. Was that so hard? All you had to do is be honest with the American people about it. Just don't hide behind some noble mission about being the defender of freedom for the oppressed. Corporate greed and the fear of a president sold as patriotism and defense of the good 'ole US of A.

Now your stance with Haiti isn't contradictory at all. Neither mission is about establishing a democratic government and freeing the oppressed, so I can see why you want to get the marines out of Haiti.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You genious!!!! we have had an embargo and not been buying Iraq oil for a long time so what the hell are you babbling about now? Saddam had a stated goal of ruling the entire middle east which would certianly not of been in our best interests or the interests of the nations around him and hell yes I'm concerned about whats best for us not some politically correct bull**** you've bought into. *Of course 9-11 triggered a change in policy Duh!! Only a liberal like you would think that 3000 American lives in a terrorist attack is something we should negotiate and only an idiot will argue that saddam didn't support terroism, hell its a well known fact he atually paid a bounty to suicide bombers families. *Its as stupid as your claim that he didn't have WMDs with pictures of dead Kurds killed by them all over the news. Oh and the old liberal standby "corporate greed"Blah blah blah. I'm sorry but you just can't accept facts and whatever the liberal mantra is you repeat it like a parrot with the same level of analysis. It really boils down to the fact that your dislike for Bush is preventing you from admitting the facts.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Geez Bobm, calm down. You really need to know how to better control yourself. Nothing like getting hostile with an opposing opinion.

I finally agree with you. Ousting Saddam was a business decision based on wanting access to Iraq's oil or fear that his presence would prevent access to other oil in the region. Based on your reply, I gather that you concur.

Should 9/11 have resulted in a change is foreign policy, especially in the Middle East? Absolutely yes! Should this policy have been an unjustified preemptive war? I don't think so. You call it justified based on the POTENTIAL for Saddam to do us harm. I call it a bad decision based on bad information and a frightened president.

You use the term "liberal" as an insult anytime that folks question the wisdom of our foreign policy and dealings with Saddam. Please see the definition below:

"*liberal*
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways "

If being "liberal" means that I am open-minded and committed to finding the truth, I take it as a compliment.

This debate is old. Come up with some new arguments to support your case or give up.

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Bob you forgot Montana blows & then what you said  Thats why it's so windy in ND :roll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This isn't exactly front page news, but this victory in the war on terror shouldn't go unnoticed. Libyan leader Moammar Kadhafi said yesterday that his country is no longer pursuing weapons of mass destruction and wants better relations with the United States. And what has forced this sudden change of tune? *That's right, the invasion of Iraq, overthrow of the government and capture of Saddam Hussein by the United States of America. That's what.*
Asked directly if the war in Iraq had been a factor, Col. Kadhafi had this to say: "We made our own decision and our analysis on the current world situation, and we came to the conclusion.....that we can't....go ahead with having these programs." *Translation: I don't want to be on George Bush's bad side.* Speaking about the recent talks with visiting U.S. congressmen, Kadhafi gushed: "We are very much interested that we are able to understand each other. The problem before was that we were not able, we did not have a chance to sit down with each other and have a dalogue. Now we are able to understand each other." That's right, Moammar...we understand each other perfectly now. Do what we say, or else. It's that simple.

The point is this: would any of this have happened with a President Kerry in office? Absolutely not. We would be placating Islamic terrorists as we follow the same old policies of appeasement and "dialogue." If Libya wasn't absolutely certain that the United States meant business, none of this would be happening. It's the same reason North Korea is giving up their nukes. They know the score, plain and simple.

No matter what John Kerry and the Democrats say, terrorism is not a "law enforcement problem" and the war on terror has succeeded in making the world a safer place.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

The fire this time in Haiti was US-fueled

The Bush administration appears to have succeeded in its long-time goal of toppling Aristide through years of blocking international aid to his impoverished nation
By Jeffrey Sachs

Monday, Mar 01, 2004,Page 9

Haiti, once again, is ablaze. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is widely blamed, and he may be toppled soon. Almost nobody, however, understands that today's chaos was made in Washington -- deliberately, cynically and steadfastly. History will bear this out. In the meantime, political, social, and economic chaos will deepen, and Haiti's impoverished people will suffer.

The Bush administration has been pursuing policies likely to topple Aristide since 2001. The hatred began when Aristide, then a parish priest and democracy campaigner against Haiti's ruthless Duvalier dictatorship, preached liberation theology in the 1980s. Aristide's attacks led US conservatives to brand him as the next Fidel Castro.?

They floated stories that Aristide was mentally deranged. Conservative disdain multiplied several-fold when then-president Bill Clinton took up Aristide's cause after he was blocked from electoral victory in 1991 by a military coup. Clinton put Aristide into power in 1994, and conservatives mocked Clinton for wasting America's efforts on "nation building" in Haiti. This is the same right wing that has squandered US$160 billion on a far more violent and dubious effort at "nation building" in Iraq.?

Attacks on Aristide began as soon as the Bush administration assumed office. I visited Aristide in Port-au-Prince in early 2001. He impressed me as intelligent and intent on good relations with Haiti's private sector and the US. No firebrand, he sought advice on how to reform his economy and explained his realistic and prescient concerns that the American right would try to wreck his presidency.

Haiti was clearly in a desperate condition: the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere, with a standard of living comparable to sub-Saharan Africa despite being only a few hours by air from Miami. Life expectancy was 52 years. Children were chronically hungry.

Of every 1,000 children born, more than 100 died before their fifth birthday. An AIDS epidemic, the worst in the Caribbean, was running unchecked. The health system had collapsed. Fearing unrest, tourists and foreign investors were staying away, so there were no jobs to be had.

But Aristide was enormously popular in early 2001. Hopes were high that he would deliver progress against the extraordinary poverty. Together with Dr. Paul Farmer, the legendary AIDS doctor in Haiti, I visited villages in Haiti's Central Plateau, asking people about their views of politics and Aristide.? Everybody referred to the president affectionately as "Titid." Here, clearly, was an elected leader with the backing of Haiti's poor, who constituted the bulk of the population.

When I returned to Washington, I spoke to senior officials in the IMF, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and Organization of American States. I expected to hear that these international organizations would be rushing to help Haiti.

Instead, I was shocked to learn that they would all be suspending aid, under vague "instructions" from the US. Washington, it seemed, was unwilling to release aid to Haiti because of irregularities in the 2000 legislative elections, and was insisting that Aristide make peace with the political opposition before releasing any aid.

The US position was a travesty. Aristide had been elected president in an indisputable landslide. He was, without doubt, the popularly elected leader of the country -- a claim that President George W. Bush cannot make about himself.

Nor were the results of the legislative elections in 2000 in doubt: Aristide's party had also won in a landslide.? It was claimed that Aristide's party had stolen a few seats. If true -- and the allegation remains unproved -- it would be nothing different from what has occurred in dozens of countries around the world receiving support from the IMF, World Bank, and the US itself. By any standard, Haiti's elections had marked a step forward in democracy, compared to the decades of military dictatorships that America had backed, not to mention long periods of direct US military occupation.

The more one sniffed around Washington the less America's position made sense. People in positions of responsibility in international agencies simply shrugged and mumbled that they couldn't do more to help Haiti in view of the Bush veto on aid. Moreover, by saying that aid would be frozen until Aristide and the political opposition reached an agreement, the Bush administration provided Haiti's un-elected opposition with an open-ended veto. Aristide's foes merely had to refuse to bargain in order to plunge Haiti into chaos.?

That chaos has now come. It is sad to hear rampaging students on BBC and CNN saying that Aristide "lied" because he didn't improve the country's social conditions. Yes, Haiti's economic collapse is fueling rioting and deaths, but the lies were not Aristide's. The lies came from Washington.

Even now, Aristide says that he will share power with the opposition, but the opposition says no. Aristide's opponents know that US right-wingers will stand with them to bring them violently to power. As long as that remains true, Haiti's agony will continue.

Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It was not the first time we had to not rescue the despot-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide-from violent rebels who began taking over cities in the northern half of the country on February 5. Haiti's National Police are powerless to fight back because Aristide staffed it with partisan loyalists four years ago, causing many professionally trained officers to quit.

On Saturday, February 21, the Bush Administration and other foreign representatives met with Aristide, who promised to honor commitments made to Caribbean leaders in January 2004 to free detained opposition figures, disarm partisan gangs, reform the police, and work with opponents to appoint a new prime minister and governing council that would include the opposition.

But Aristide has a history of ignoring promises and was waiting for the opposition to come to him. Absent immediate action on his part, the United States and the international community had no choice but to decide Haiti's democracy has run off the rails and thus, support the restoration of democratic institutions under a process that allows Haitians to decide who their leaders will be.

On February 17, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had good reasons for saying that "there is frankly no enthusiasm right now for sending in military or police forces" to put down the rebellion. *Previous interventions have been ineffective and costly. For instance, U.S. Marines put down an uprising in 1915 and stayed for 19 years, but stable government unraveled soon thereafter.*

In 1986, the Reagan Administration urged dictator Jean Claude Duvalier to step down after his misrule led to rebellion. A coup sent him into exile and, the next year, Haiti adopted its first truly democratic constitution. But in 1990, *Haitians elected fiery ex-priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He called on violent street gangs known as chimeres to pursue political rivals and, in less than a year, his administration collapsed into chaos and violence. His own security chief, General Raoul Cedras, replaced him with a military junta. ( I guess he was secretly a member of the conservatives in the US :lol: ) *
As an elected leader, Aristide was awarded gilded exile by the U.S. and allowed to draw on Haiti's frozen U.S. bank accounts. According to former U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Lawrence Pezzullo, Aristide used some of the money to lobby Congress to help restore his presidency. Aristide then blocked efforts to negotiate with Haiti's military rulers and local members of parliament, thus giving them an excuse not to accept him back. Blinded by Aristide's lobbying campaign and mounting Congressional pressure to do something, the Clinton Administration opted to invade Haiti in 1994.

It was then-U.S. Army General Colin Powell who accompanied former President Jimmy Carter to restore Aristide to power at a cost of about $3 billion and a commitment of 20,000 troops. 
Back in office, Aristide repaid the high-level favor by reuniting his violent supporters and ruling like the dictators who preceded him. 
*Whether to support Aristide again was a tough call*. He is an elected official, despite the flawed contest in November 2000 that returned him to office with less than three percent of the electorate participating. Promoting his early departure did weaken Haiti's tenuous hold on consitutional order. On the other hand, *his regime is hardly a democracy. Haiti does not now have a sitting legislature or an independent judiciary, and so the president rules by decree. Few other public institutions function* and some state employees are reportedly paid with drug trafficking profits.

Second, the rebels who toppled Aristide are former supporters who think they no longer need him. Pressured by the Organization of American States to improve his human rights record, Aristide began cutting links to them last year. Now, gangs like the Gonaives-based Cannibal Army have formed fronts that have taken over northern Haiti. Mixed in are death squad leaders and members of Haiti's disbanded military with whom Aristide once made temporary alliances.

*Weakest of all, and least heard above the din, are peaceful opponents who come from more than 300 fragmented groups known as the Democratic Convergence. They have yet to coalesce around specific solutions and leaders. But they are Haiti's best hope of restoring democracy*. 
Tired of Aristide's broken promises, the non-violent Democratic Convergence has refused to negotiate with the president. They remember that he had to be talked out of staying beyond his first term which ended in 1995. *He promised to help the downtrodden, but even with massive aid from the United States, Canada, and France, Haiti is poorer and more violent today than ever before.* And Aristide has become the wealthiest man in Haiti , wonder how that happened??? 
Under Aristide's Lavalas Party rule, outside electoral assistance never led to a permanent voter registry or to any other electoral infrastructure. All elections from 1997 forward were manipulated to various degrees by Lavalas, even though most of its candidates had enough votes to win.

Under Aristide's 1995 successor, President René Préval, the United States and Canada trained a professional 6,000-man national police. But when Aristide returned to office in 2000, he appointed partisan loyalists to key positions, *demoralizing the police force and turning it into little more than an escort service for his own mobs*. Half of those professionally trained resigned; others were replaced.

After the Clinton Administration( another member of Mt Pheasants conservatives :lol: :lol: ) suspended direct assistance to Haiti's government, President Aristide made an eight-point promise to correct previous flawed parliamentary elections, respect human rights, and form an administration including opposition parties. He also agreed to two resolutions from the Organization of American States to prosecute human-rights abusers and establish a climate of security. *Aristide did little to keep these commitments*.

As peaceful protests reached a crescendo in January 2004, Aristide told leaders of the 15-member Caribbean Community that he would disarm partisan gangs, reform the police, and work with non-violent opponents to appoint a new prime minister and governing council that includes the opposition as a basis to elect new members of parliament, whose terms had all lapsed. Days passed with no action until violence broke out on February 5.

The United States and other foreign parties deserve credit for wanting to help resolve the crisis. Meeting with President Aristide Saturday, February 21, diplomats from the United States, Canada, France, the Organization of American States, and the Caribbean Community( all menbers of the conservative Bush adminstration, especially the French!! :lol: ) got him to agree to a new cabinet and to allow an independent Haitian commission to select a new prime minister-similar to what Aristide promised Caribbean leaders in January. 
But business leaders, student groups, and political rivals didn't buy into this because of past promises made and ignored. Moreover, the February 21 proposal failed to provide for their safety or guarantee that Aristide wouldn't go back on his word. ( which he has every single time, hes a dictator and can't be trusted)

Propping up Aristide is a bad idea. It will neither restore democracy nor keep the peace. The United States and its allies were better off urging him to resign. He's lucky they just didn't let it play out because he would be room temperature by now

In any case, the international community should be ready to help representatives of all Haiti's political parties form an interim governing council to arrange for fresh elections as soon as possible. These should be conducted by the Organization of American States until local capacity and competency permits a handover. To ensure accountability of aid, donor nations should form a supervisory council to channel assistance and ensure that it is used by the state only for intended purposes until responsible government and free markets emerge. Meanwhile, allegations against Aristide of human rights abuse and drug trafficking should be investigated.

The entire process could take a decade or more. *Is it in America's interest?* Barely, but over the long term, democratic stability in our hemisphere is cheaper than blow ups and bailouts.... I guess.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

My first line should read to rescue instead of "to not rescue", I hate when I do that :lol:


----------

