Posted on 02/26/2004 12:05:32 AM PST by kattracks
How does one go about ''preserving'' that which provably has never existed? Aristede, based upon only his own actions, is and always has been Stalin in miniature, Mugabe writ small.
Of course, this type of thug always has had support from an unfortunately large number of the lace-panty types that infest the Department of State.
Now, let me guess. This is the OFFICIAL black helicopter crowd, right?
Please pardon me if my surprise is staggeringly underwhelming, as regards this lot demonstrating their willful stupidity (yet once again) in public.
Is there ANY tyrant that large chunks of the Left will not invariably find some odd ''reason'' to support? Sheesh.
11 april 2003
Bill Clintons trip to Port-au-Prince on Tuesday was supposed to be all about his Clinton Foundations fight against AIDS. Haiti is indeed engaged in a brutal battle against the disease. Yet even so, locals didnt seem too happy to have the former president calling on Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide. Thoughtful policy types, Haitian and otherwise, who are interested in righting the capsized nation largely ignored the visit.
In fact, what is fascinating about the Clinton voyage is the stark contrast between the glory Mr. Clinton insists on for his Haitian protégé and the disdain that so many Haitians -- once strong supporters of Mr. Aristide -- now have for their president.
This is especially evident among intellectuals and elites, who increasingly write and speak about Mr. Aristide as a man that cultivates a culture of fear and has destroyed a nascent democracy.
At least part of the resentment about the Clinton appearance in the Haitian capital centered on allegations of corruption. There are unflattering but unavoidable suspicions of the relationship between the Haitian president and Clinton Democrats who went into the long distance telephone business with him after his return to power in 1994.
Haitis Patriotic Movement for National Salvation (MPSN), which hopes that Mr. Aristides failed government will soon fold, issued a press release on April 8 impugning Mr. Clintons motives. "Did the former American leader invest in important economic sectors and does he feel the need to safeguard his interests in the post-Aristide era," the MPSN asked.
During his one-day visit Mr. Clinton declared, "I think there should be a humanitarian exception to the embargo on aid," according to the Associated Press. A call for funneling large sums of money into any place so notoriously corrupt should raise eyebrows. But this case creates an even greater miasma. Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr. Aristides wife Mildred, who calls the shots in Haitis shady telecom business, coordinates the national effort to combat AIDS.
Another point of contention for Haitians was Mr. Clintons use of the term "embargo" to describe the freeze on aid. It is rhetoric that Mr. Aristide is also fond of but it is inaccurate ; an embargo is a prohibition against commerce. Moreover, the freeze could be lifted today if Mr. Aristide would comply with some minimal levels of democratic civility. Unfortunately Mr. Clinton did not mention this.
For ardent defenders of Mr. Aristide such as the Congressional Black Caucus or for Caribbean ambassadors to the U.S. who dislike George W. Bush and have been known to actively support Mr. Clintons wife, the plea for more international aid for Haiti might have settled some debts. But for those serious about the Haitian struggle, what appears to be relentless Clinton advocacy for the Aristide presidency is disturbing.
The generalized disgust with the Mr. Aristides tactics is by no means limited to the sphere of his ideological enemies. Plenty of critics today were once supporters. In the New York Review of Books, Peter Dailey, who describes himself as a journalist who was sympathetic to Mr. Aristide in the early 1990s, has written a two-part review of "Haitis Predatory Republic : The Unending Transition to Democracy" by Robert Fatton, Jr.
Among other things, the Fatton book traces the historical roots of Haitis "predatory democracy," a place where, Mr. Dailey writes, "government remains the primary route to power and wealth." Thus it is not surprising that Mr. Aristide has become another in a long line of authoritarian Haitian leaders.
In Part I of his review, on March 13 Mr. Dailey explains what Bill Clinton seems to still not understand. "Aristides opponents turned out to be neither the entrenched economic elite nor the die-hard elements of the old Duvalieriste party, as almost everyone in 1994 might have anticipated, but the social democratic-constitutionalist wing of the Lavalas movement, the left-wing-populist coalition that first brought Aristide to power, which was mobilized into opposition by the Aristide governments increasingly corrupt and authoritarian character."
As Mr. Aristide party broke apart in the mid-1990s a deep rift grew between himself and the idealists who helped him to power. Writes Mr. Dailey : "Aristide was now opposed by veterans of the anti-Duvalier struggle and almost all of the left, persons who had stood with him in the Eighties and fought for his return from exile. Among the disaffected former supporters are virtually all of Haitis leading intellectuals and artists, the persons who had best articulated the humane values that should be at the basis of any new Haitian society."
"By 1999, it seemed to many Haitians that Aristide, who once personified Haitian aspirations for democracy, now represented Haitian democracys biggest obstacle," Mr. Dailey says.
Nor are Aristide critics limited to Haiti. In Washington, as well, some members of congress are admitting the failure of Haitian democracy. On Feb. 5, during a Senate hearing on Haitian migrants, Senator Edward Kennedy had this to say about the situation : "When Haiti elected its first democratic president in 1990, we had a great hope for economic and political stability and respect for basic rights. But even Aristide has failed to bring in a new era of peace and prosperity.
"Instead, we have seen escalating political violence. Illegal arrests, arbitrary detentions, disappearances, killings, crackdowns on political opponents, and restraints on free speech and free assembly are all too common. In the last six months, we have seen new waves of violence, targeting journalists, students, human-rights actvists, and the governments political opponents. Those who commit these harsh acts of brutality and intolerance often operate with impunity, and in some cases, they appear to be acting with government support."
By now even a zombie would recognize how thoroughly discredited Mr. Aristide is and how critical international pressure is to altering the situation. Which raises the question of why Mr. Clinton doggedly pursues his cozy relationship with the Haitian president.
MARY ANASTASIA OGRADY
Haitian president and Clinton Democrats who went into the long distance telephone business with him after his return to power in 1994.
Good one. Unfortunately so true.
Bwah....
Why not?
My advice to the rebels would be to kill the communist ex-priest IMMEDIATLY - or he will be re-installed....
Kill him NOW....and all that stand with him....
There is nothing to fear from the U.N. -- it will be months or perhaps years before they work up the consensus or nerve to do anything...
My question to the black caucus is to ask where their first loyalty lies --- with America's best interests, or some communist black thug in Haiti...
The Congressional Black Caucus speaks up publicly to save this sorry bastard, but I haven't heard a word of condemnation about the black leaders in Africa murdering, stealing from and dispossessing white farmers....
WHY?
Semper Fi
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.