Kerry Pushed For Military Invasion of Haiti in '94

The New York Times ^ | May 16, 1994 | John F. Kerry

[mass55th]

Of course, that was at a different time and a different President, but isn't it nice to know that Kerry's own words will probably be his downfall in November?

[TADSLOS]

Some of those governments have expressed reluctance to commit to a military solution before the current diplomatic strategy has time to mature. They miss the point. Failure to threaten the use of force now would significantly increase the probability that diplomacy will fail. In the end, we’d wind up where we are today: unprepared and with a weak hand.

Wow.

[BCrago66]

Bad link.

[Enterprise]

"Kerry Pushed For Military Invasion of Haiti in '94"

Imperialist running dog capitalist warmonger!

[ServesURight]

This is from the NY Times?

It's snowing in Hell....

[ServesURight]

Nevermind...didn't see the date on the article. Great find though!!

[ServesURight]

This should be emailed to NewsMax and Hannity.

[El Gato]

Of course, that was at a different time and a different President,

More importantly the person to be aided was and remains, a flaming Red. We put the guy in there under Clinton, after they had kicked him out once, they are working to kick him out yet again, but this time he doesn't have a Communist sympathizer in the Oval Office.

Just goes to show were his sympathies have always laid, first with the Communist NVA and VC, then with the Red Aristide, and always, always against his own country.

[sirshackleton]

Tasty......

[Enterprise]

"This should be emailed to NewsMax and Hannity."

Naw. They have people lurking here, I'm POSITIVE of it!

[El Gato]

Imperialist running dog capitalist warmonger!

Quite the contrary. Imperialist running dog Red/socialist/communist warmonger would be more correct. Fighting is OK with him, as long as those you are fighting for are Reds.

[mass55th]

Bad Link

The link is to the New York Times online. There is no link to the actual op-ed piece as it was discovered through a library database. FR requires URL's in order to post articles, so I had to use the only link available just to post this. Sorry.

[Hon]

Good get!

So John Kerry was for installing Aristide? Hilarious!

BTW, do you think anyone in the media will ask him about his judgment on this issue? (That's a rhetorical question, of course.)

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Does Jane Fonda know about this ?

[finnman69]

bookmark bump

[finnman69]

Can you at least post the title of the original Op-Ed for record?

[js1138]

Kerry always takes both sides of every issue. Three sides if they're available. Not only that, but he's very certain of his opinions. Not wishy-washy at all.

[Hon]

"My clear first choice is to pursue an aggressive diplomatic course of multilateral negotiations aimed at forcing the military leaders out within a short time. But precisely because there was no believable threat of force, our efforts have failed."

The hell you say!

[Oldeconomybuyer]

FResearch bump!

[mass55th]

Joshua Muravchik of The American Jewish Committee wrote a rebuttal to Kerry's op-ed in July of '94. I'm not sure regarding copyright, but here are some excerpts:

Kerry, after all, has been a frequent opponent of U.S. military action. He launched his political career as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. No sooner had he arrived in the Senate than he made himself a principal opponent of military aid to America's allies in Central America. And when the Senate debated the use of force against Iraq, Kerry was volubly opposed. He declared: "In my heart and in my gut and in my mind I do not believe in sending people to war unless it is imperative."

Moreover, whereas Kerry now says that the threat of military action will strengthen our diplomatic hand with Haiti, he rejected the very same argument with respect to Iraq.

Since I believe that it would be unwise for the U.S. to invade Haiti--where, to repeat, neither American lives nor American security interests are at risk, and where, in addition, the deposed, democratically elected president is no democrat himself--the emptiness of Kerry's advocacy is perhaps to be welcomed. But this is not the case with the general position he takes against unilateral action by the U.S.

For a superpower, the essence of foreign policy is not to act only in the face of "clear and present dangers," but to prevent such dangers from materializing by timely assertions of power and extensions of aid to others under threat. To forfeit the right to do these things unilaterally--to subsume our judgment to that of international civil servants like Boutros Boutros Ghali--would be an abdication of responsibility for which we and the world will pay dearly (as is likely to happen in the case of Bosnia). But this is a lesson of our success in the cold war that old-time doves like Kerry--most of whom recently voted against unilaterally lifting the arms embargo to Bosnia--still seem unwilling to learn.