Officially at 7:24 am on 2-29-2004 President Ariside has left haiti. Was it right? To view the newest article that i fouond check here (MSNBC isnt my favorite, but i had to tell friend from britian) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4244322/ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/02/...volt/index.html

Second Source added 2-29-2004 at 7:48 am

It was a very smart move. The man was a corrupt Preisdent. If he hadn't left, he would have been captured, given a kangaroo court, and who knows what would happen after that.

Now that this thing has been settled diplomatically, Haiti can be a little more peaceful

I wonder why those rebels were carrying American flags.
And the Whitehouse tells him to leave, and wouldnt send peace keeping troops untill he did.

NY times reported that the "rebels are led by death squad veterans and convicted murderers." also say that the rebel leader "guy phillipe" is infamous for his human rights abuses.

Colin powell origionally was opposed to all this until recently he said to the Hatian presidente to "re examine his presidency". and now they say the country is better of without the president.

Whos side are we on? To unofficially oust a president is not normal american policy in my opinion.

Lol, Xenn, where have you been? Ousting foreign leaders, although not policy, is a well known fact in our foreign policy that we've participated in. Diem in Vietnam up until Saddam in Iraq. And those are the one's that we've been able to pull off. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a broader attempt at overthrowing Casto, nevermind that we've tried to assassinate him anyhow.

Anyhow, now this jerk wants to claimed we forced him to resign and that it was a "coup d'etat" by the US. What the hell is this dude on? If he hadn't of left, he'd be dead. Simple as that. Those rebels would of made an exampe of him in short order. And you know what's really sad. There are members of Congress that believe him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/03/...laim/index.html

"The way I see it is they came to his house, uninvited," [House Rep. Maxine] Waters [Dem.] said. "They had not only the force of the embassy but the Marines with them. They made it clear that he had to go now or he would be killed...It was very clear to him ... that the Americans had been responsible for helping to carry out the coup d'etat," she said...Waters said she "tends to doubt the State Department" because she has "been lied to over and over again."

Why are these so-called rebels who are really criminals and thugs riding up and down the streets of Port-au-Prince in their old military dress," she asked. "I have a lot of questions of my own government at this point. President Aristide said it was a coup...Waters accused Undersecretary of State for Latin America Roger Noriega -- whom she called "a Haiti hater" -- of being behind the troubles there."

Oh my God, what is she thinking? There's a reason why only the Central African Republic would take him in. He stinks of trouble. The guy is a dirtbag and now he wants the US, who supported him early on in the 1990's, to pay for the life he was accustomed to living in Haiti as a rich man, and is now deprived of, while the rest of the nation was engulfed in poverty. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds for him. Now maybe Haiti has a chance to rebuild.

I think Waters is absolutely right and I have no doubt we were probably the leaders behind the coup de etat- it is GWs M.O. big time, and has his signature, so to speak all over it.

There should be, at the very least, a VERY complete investigation headed by someone that is politically anti-GW- it is the only way we will ever get anything resembling the truth.

Aristide probably wasn't "playing ball" with something that GW wanted, tax cuts or something, so forced him out.

Something really stinks here, and it is coming from the WH!

But as far as him going- was Aristide elected in free and fair elections? Was there an opportunity for another free and fair election to oust him?

Uh CR, did you not notice the mass of rebels marching on Port-au-prince? Did you not see the rebels take control of half of the country over the last month? If Aristide had not of been as corrupt, the people would not have risen against him. This isn't a coup, this was a revolt, and we saved Aristide's life. The rebels and the pro-Aristide supporters would have fought a bloody battle, encouraged by Aristide, and many Hatians would of been killed. And then guess what, the US would have been criticized for NOT interviening.

And what is Dubya's 'signature' in this supposed coup? What did we have to benefit by doing this? The man that WE, the US, supported when he was first elected is now trying to extort us. And for Aristide 'not playing ball', the only people he didn't play ball with was the Hatian people.

And what is a partisan investigation gonna solve? More Bush-bashing from the left? What next? You gonna tell me that Rep. Waters is gonna head the investigation? Wow, like anything would be solved then.

Aristide is just mad cause he can't live the sweet life like he did when he was in Haiti and now he wants us to foot the bill.

Actually, i really doubt he himself said this. The only reports came from a 2nd party. I never believed it. I would, however, believe it if he himself said it and not him through a 2nd party

Believe away!

Aristide says U.S. deposed him in 'coup d'etat'

Has everyone missed the complete irony that this is the guy we put in power during 'Operation Restore Democracy' in the early 90s?

I don't think this was a threat by the Marines, but more so a warning of what the advancing rebels would do to him. The article provided said that he went to an airport with his own security force. Why would you kidnap someone then let them go by themselves, with their own loyal security force, to the airport. If he wanted to he could have just circle the block, or not have jumped on the plane and secretly hung out at the airport.

I see that the Congressional Black Caucus is making a butt of itself on the floor of the house. How easy it must be to make accusations based on the ravings of a corrupt, deposed tin pot third world leader. How easy it must be not to back it up with ANY credible proof. But I guess it plays well during an election year. all of the race warlords are coming out of the woodwork.


This is rich. Only someone diametrically opposed to GWB would be capable of telling the truth, because we all know liberals NEVER lie.

What did we have to benefit by doing this?

Haiti does not have oil. But its strategically placed between us and venezuala. Thats my theory, just follow the oil. After all, Cheney and Bush Jr. are both ex oil CEOs and I know atleast one of them still makes piles of cash off this industry.

They're 9th biggest producer of oil. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2173rank.html


Dontreadonme

Ya, Oneil told the truth and hes not liberal. Same with Kay, now kay says the admin may have misrepresented the facts about Iraq. He says it deserves a serious investigation, I agree. And thats a Bush appointed guy!

Hmm, too bad Bush Whitehouse are not willing to testify. I wonder why

Uh oh, look what I just found!

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-03/...ent_1340090.htm



Its Venezualan oil I tells ya!!

I found this interesting because, using your theory of Haiti being strategic because it lies in between us and Venezuela, then to fall back on the left's argument that we are in Iraq only because of oil; We now must invade Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, the Azores and Bermuda.

Besides, Haiti wasn't exactly a bastion of interference if we had decided to take Venezuela's oil.
So Chavez would block our access to Venezuela's oil if we invade Venezuela? Is it any wonder most people don't take these countries leaders seriously?

And interesting choice of news source. Nothing like ChiCom news to tell the straight truth.

Sorry, I can't trust CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX these days. They're obviously in bed w/ big business. For example, everyone SHOULD know that FOX blatently fused Iraq with al quada when they have nothing to do with eachother. 70% of Fox viewers believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
And after they lied to the american people while sensationalizing the war effort at the same time. I consider them treasonous traitors.

Sorry.



Well, concidering the the rebel leader is known for his human rights abuses and the rebels are convicted murderers and death squad veterans. I wouldnt want to live in a country ruled by these people, would have to rebel against rebels before they commit genocide.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/03/...bels/index.html

Looks like there might not be an onslaught of genocide after all.





Haiti has a fresh start now. And we're gonna help see to that.

It's about time. I think Haiti has seen the last of it's violent days and good deays are ahead for it. It just takes the right leader(s).

I'm not so easily convinced. Within the 200 years since the Haitian people defeated Napoleon's army and declared their independence, Haiti has had 32 political uprisings. It has been plagued by political violence and corrupt leadership, and it is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. The people are largely uneducated and impoverished, and it's going to take a lot more than deposing Aristide to turn things around.

Yes, it was right! The Haitian problems won't be resolved in short order, but it is a beginning and let's hope the leaders and people can hang in there together for the long haul.

Here is a CNN raw transcript with Collin Powell regarding the assertions of Aristide. Maxine Waters should take a long vacation and get her priorities in order regardless of the fact that it is an election year. We need another investigation like she needs another big mouth!

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: ... charges are leveled at us.

Thanks for posting that, Desert Resident.

You are correct. It is a beginning, and let us hope that they have better luck this time around. Haiti desperately needs some stability.

It will be interesting to see how things develop. One worry is the role that the opposition forces will play in the days to come. From what I've read, they had no plans beyond the removal of Aristide, but already we have seen a certain element vying for power. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

On a side note, Jean-Claude Duvalier has expressed a desire to return to Haiti. Whether this has any significance, I do not know.

Can somebody tell me how a United States Congresswoman blatantly accuse the Government of aiding and enabling a coup, while providing absolutely no evidence?

From the website of the esteemed Congresswoman Barbara Lee:

Link

It's one thing to call for an investigation based on some sort of factual basis. But this is over the top. Of course Republicans won't call her on it, not until that spine transplant happens. Gutless wonders.

Didn't we take Aristide out of Haiti?
Didn't he then publicly claim to have been kidnapped?

Aristide's Claims Trouble African Host

Tuesday March 2, 2004 12:31 PM




I don't think this is a case of having no evidence. The United States did pressure Aristide to leave. We had a role in this. There should be questions and I am interested in the answers. So I do not see something over the top here. Am I missing something?

I think the pressure for him to leave was was coming from the rebels knocking on the door, the pressure for him to leave alive was coming from the US. I haven't seen anything besides the ex president accusations that point to another "regime change." All the evidence points to he called for help, we sent an ambassador protected by Marines in a violent environment to discuss leaving, then we provided a plane.

IMO, it is a matter of who you are willing to believe...the U. S. or a disgruntled/failed leader whose preferred plan was to have the U. S. once again contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the cause of keeping him in power and send troops in to fight his war. When no other country including France and the U. S. was willing to come to his aid, he was left with a choice...leave with protection for a safe haven or stay and face the possibility of leaving in a body bag. Do you honestly believe that he had to be kidnapped rather than arriving at a reasonable conclusion about his fate?

Aristide was given monetary aid, the opportunity to work out the differences between the government/leaders and the Haitian people, and ample time (years) to restore order. Think of the Haitian revolt as a barbaric recall similar to those voters in California using a democratic avenue to remove their Governor Gray Davis from his elected office.

From the Colin Powell statement that Desert Resident posted:



It looks to me like there was some diplomatic pressure happening, but that certainly doesn't equate to a coup. As Eeyore said, there are some questions that should be asked, but from reading some of the op-eds online, it looks like a lot of people are wildly speculating without having much proof to back up their allegations. And if it was a coup, what were the motives? I haven't seen one yet. I'm willing to listen, but the accusations are flying without anything substantial to make me believe that they're true.

The elections that put Aristide into office for a second term were flawed, and the International community and the Haitian people have been pushing the Haitian government to deal with that situation since 2000(?). I believe that the United States was in a difficult position on this one, and the first priority was to avoid as much violence as possible.

Cyan hit the nail on the head. We were facing pressure from outside if we helped Aristide or not. If we didn't we would of been accused of sitting by while someone we supported in the 90's. and when we did, we were accused of throwing a coup. But we did the right thing and that SOB Aristide should be greatful he's alive.

A couple of days ago virtually every member of the Congressional Black Caucus was on the floor of the house railing on and on about how we orchestrated a coup in Haiti. They have, of course, cited absolutely no evidence. Do we now, as a nation, accept this type of behavior by elected representatives, without an iota of proof. Save the rantings of a pseudo-dictator, (whose elections were far more flawed than our 2000 debacle was ever claimed to be) the only proof provided by the various left wing web sites have been that some of the rebels had M-16's and american style camo uniforms.
It's appalling and disgusting. Would the CBC be ranting and raving if Aristide's skin color was lighter? Doubtful.
It certainly gives credence to the quote by Ann Coulter, that 'the left never met a dictator they didn't like'.

I think that blanket statement against the left by you, DTOM is more offensive than what you are reporting to have been done by the black congressional caucus.

Their is evidence that needs to be looked into. If the person that supposedly says he asked for help from the United States is now claiming he was kidnapped then there are some questions to be answered.

Since the United States took Aristide out of Haiti and that is leading to a change in power, we are definitely playing a decisive role in this situation.

If Aristide is not credible because of election tampering he is not credible. We cannot then assume that his request for help or his accusations of kidnapping are worthy of listening to.

As for that potshot about the left never seeing a dictator they didn't like, shame on you DTOM. I would argue that the left has a much better record trying to defend civil liberties and encourage their spread a la the 14 points and Carter foreign policy as examples. Do we really need to go down the list of dictators supported by the right over the past 150 years.

America has been guilty on the left and the right of supporting dictatorships and subsidizing them when it has been in our foreign policy interests. It is a major failing of this country. You and Ms. Coulter should apologize for the blanket statement.

Umm... and you know that the Bush Administration supported Aristide right up to the moment that the rebels were in the Capital, right?

And you know that Aristide was elected by his people, unlike the rebel leaders, right? Regardless of what you think of the election (and I'll admit there was probably as much voter fraud as documented for Florida in 2000 ), I didn't hear about an election for the rebel leaders.

Actually, the Bush administration did not support Aristride all that much during this fiasco. Remember they kept insisting that he leave.

I will most certainly not apologize for the statement. I've heard far worse comments pertaining to conservatives or Bush, and not a peep from any liberals. Besides, it was just rhetorical flourish.

Press release from Jesse Jackson:


Press release by Congresswoman Barbara Lee:

Funny, with all of the obviousness of US complicity in the 'coup', not a lick o' evidence. Just wild speculation. But I suppose if you're a Congresswoman or a race warlord, you can get away with that.
I fully support an investigation, if those esteemed congress people desire one. I simply think that it is the height of unprofessionalism for our elected leaders to make speculative charges against the government. Of course, that does seem to be the Dem's MO of late.

Isn't another way of saying this, "They are wrong too so I am not going to apologize for being wrong. And besides I was wrong with style!"

I think that is an unfortunate position when you are justifying your behavior because other people have done it too.



You keep saying that these opinions have no concrete evidence behind them. I keep referring to the obvious fact that the United States played a role in physically removing Aristide from Haiti.

What due process was put in place when Aristide was removed from Haiti? Is he free to return? It seems very likely that Jackson's comments, with some rhetorical flourish, have some merit to them. No he was not charged or convicted, literally, but he was taken away from Haiti and apparently he is no longer the leader of that country.




You are taking Congressmen Lee to task for groundless accusations, but this seems like an obvious and relatively thoughtful statement. Regime change seems to be happening here and we played a blatant role in it.

Whether this is the right foreign policy issue or not is another matter. It is a difficult situation. A US response was needed. The Jackson and Lee obviously are exercising their right to disagree with the policy. What I don't see is ranting from the Caucus that is not based in fact. This is not like saying the removal of Haiti was orchestrated so that Bush's cronies in the oil industry and perhaps United Fruit company can put a pro-oil drilling, pro-cheap banana export leader in place for the benefit of American companies.

IMO...the U. S. should have stayed out of it period! This wasn't my first opinion, but after the end results, I am inclined to regret that we AGAIN honored President Aristide's request for help. We should have let those people fight it out regardless of how they got rid of Aristide and regardless of how many of their own people they slaughtered. Now, there is another country that wants to overthrow their leader...and I hope that we turn our heads and let the riots go on until they resolve their own problems in any way they deem fit whether right or wrong.

In fact, let's send the notorious Reverend Jessie Jackson on a good will mission to negotiate with these people. Thats as good a place as any for that ambulance chaser and paragon of virtue.

Desertresident,

This is a good idea for those countries where we don't have a direct "national interest". With Haiti, I believe the concern is uncontrolled immigration so possibly acting quickly to calm the situation was justified.

I agree though, we should have waited for the UN to put in a peace keeping force--which would have taken about a year--by then Aristide would have been underground (literally) for about 50 weeks, the black caucus would be screaming for "US unilateral preemption", and the French would be accusing the US of a lack of Humanitarianism!

First of all, there is no question that this was a coup d'etat - and a bloody one at that. One need only look the concept up in a dictionary. The only question is whether or not it had US backing. And I think there's little question of that either.

Looking at the history of this beleaguered country, the closest parallel is not Venezuela, but Nicaragua - with the Famni Lavalas as latterday Sandinistas and the US-trained and financed paramilitary death squads of the FRAPH standing in for the Contras.

Aristide initially had US support. But once he was in office, he proved to be just a bit too liberal for American tastes - always a big mistake for countries in our hemisphere. His worst mistake was disbanding the army. As this army had been created by an Act of Congress to effect the US occupation of Haiti from 1915 until 1990 when Haiti had the first democratic elections (in which Aristide won by an overwhelming majority), the incensed Bush the Elder set in motion the terrorist opposition to Aristide (resulting in the first coup against his government) from 1991 to 1994.

The US-backed opposition to Aristide's party continued throughout the Clinton years and fostered the "questions" raised about the 2000 election (the one in Haiti, not the one in Florida). There is no question that Aristide's leadership has been seriously flawed - though the US-sponsored embargoes against his country since the disputed 2000 election (the one in Haiti, not the one in Florida) have seriously impaired his efforts. These embargoes, initiated by the Bush administration and backed by both the US and the EU, against humanitarian and development assistance to Haiti, including health and education, have been in place since Aristide was re-elected. And the Bush administration has rejected all proposals put forward by Aristide to ensure a peaceful reconciliation for the past three years.

Much more on all of this can be found in an excellent series of articles on Haiti at Democracy Now.

Leading figures in the current coup include Guy Phillippe, who was trained in Ecuador by US Special Forces during the 1991-1994 campaign of terrorism. Philippe has since master-minding deadly attacks on the Police Academy and the National Palace in July and December 2001 and organized hit-and-run raids against police stations on Haiti's Central Plateau over a two-year period.

Also prominent in the current coup is Louis Jodel Chamblain. Chamblain was found guilty (in absentia) of organizing the 1994 massacre in the pro-democracy region of Raboteau and the 1993 assassination of democracy-activist Antoine Izméry. He was also behind the assassination of Haitian Justice Minister Guy Malary. According to an October 28, 1993 CIA Intelligence Memorandum "FRAPH members Jodel Chamblain, Emmanuel Constant, and Gabriel Douzable met with an unidentified military officer on the morning of 14 October to discuss plans to kill Malary."

Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, mentioned above, was the founder of FRAPH and lead the 1991-1994 coup against Aristide as its military head. Throughout that terrorist campaign, Constant had the support of the US. Indeed, he was on the payroll of the defense intelligence agency. When this came to light, it was one of the things which brought down James Woolsey, ex-head of the CIA. Constant currently lives in Queens, NY, under the protection of the US government.

The opposition which mounted this coup claims they've been getting support from the International Republican Institute. Founded by Ronald Reagan and funded primarily through Congressional appropriations, the IRI descibes itself - without irony - as a "non-partisan Washington-based group which conducts programs outside the United States" in order to promote "fundamental American principles such as individual liberty, rule of law, and entrepreneurial spirit" and whose board includes such luminaries as Lawrence Eagleberger, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Brent Scowcroft. The IRI met with the opposition in the Dominican Republic last December, where (according to Haitian journalist Jean Jean-Pierre) "it was no secret that they [the opposition] were getting directives from the IRI". The IRI also "assists democracy efforts" in Nicaragua and Venezuela.

According to Ira Kurzban, the Miami-based attorney who has served as General Counsel to the Haitian government since 1991, the paramilitaries who were fighting to overthrow Aristide were being backed by Washington: "This is a group that is armed by, trained by, and employed by the intelligence services of the United States. This is clearly a military operation, and it's a military coup."

Oh - and another thing:
You mean, if the US lifts its embargoes against Aristide, Haiti may have a chance? Could be. I'd like to see some evidence of all this "stinking of trouble" and being a "dirtbag" and "living as a rich man" and all the other allegations which have been made about the most popular leader Haiti has ever had (in Haiti, if not the US) by several contributors here. The man was far from perfect, but he was hardly the despot some are trying to paint him.

The reason I quoted this paragraph though, was to correct another lie which has been put about recently: "only the Central African Republic would take him in". It has been mentioned a few times in the "liberal media" that Aristide was denied exile in South Africa. In a front page article, The New York Times said President Thabo Mbeki did not want to provoke a political controversy in South Africa and refused him entry. But, according to the South African ambassador to the United Nations, Dumisani Kumalo, President Aristide did not request asylum or exile in South Africa, nor did the South African government deny him amnesty or exile as alleged by the US State Department. The "senior state department officials" quoted by the NY Times and others were, simply, lying.

So, the US has been backing the paramilitary opposition leaders since at least 1991, the US has been funding them and giving them military and intelligence training for more than a decade, the Bush administration has been placing sanctions on Aristide's government since his election and rejecting all efforts toward peaceful reconciliation, members of the opposition met with a US government-funded political organization in December where "directives" were issued, the American attorney for Aristide's government alleges this is a military coup backed by the US, and the State Department has already begun lying about the details of Aristide's ouster - oh, and Poppy Bush really doesn't like Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

So, did the US have a hand in the recent coup d'etat? Duh.

President Aristide has left Haiti. Was it right?

Only if we are not interested in the democratic process. The Bush administration has been claiming that the "war on terror" is a war for freedom and democracy. A close neighbor's democratically elected government was just threatened with violent overthrow. If the Bush administration wanted to credibly demonstrate leadership for the cause of democracy, this would have been a pretty good time to do it. We should have helped put the rebellion down, Aristide should have served out his term or called for a new election, and the Haitian people should have been allowed to determine their own fate - even if that had meant an overwhelming majority backing Aristide for a third time. We did not. In fact, we did just the opposite. We backed the rebellion and the violent overthrow of a democratically elected leader, we compelled him to leave the country (whether by threat or by force), and God knows what the fate of the Haitian people will be in the aftermath of further US intervention - especially in the hands of the US-backed terrorists who now seem to be in charge.

We should have worked with Aristide from the outset, rather than forcing the withdrawal of peacekeepers and cutting off aid in 2001. When the people we have been training and financing for the past decade or so started committing acts of terror, slaughtering dozens of innocent Haitians and threatening to murder their democratically elected leader, we should have stepped in. But only if the Bush administration's interest in "freedom and democracy" is anything other than yet another self-serving lie.

Desert Resident



I have a better idea. Let Bush use his favorite envoy,James A. Baker, on a good will mission. After all he went down to Florida in November of 2000 to tell the American people that common sense should prevail and Bush should be the President

I can't think of anyone else that would have the integrity and the good will of the American people.

I don't have any feelings either way on Haiti. I just feel very sorry for the people that have to live there and go thru all these killings and very little freedom.

Yeah. I agree. The immigration problem would have been a concern. I remember a couple years ago watching on Fox News a huge boatload of Haitian refugees jump on shore of Miami. That was a political and immigrational nightmare. The thing in Haiti over the last few weeks were giving me flashbacks of that incident

Yes, but the Democrats bashed Bush for turning them back...so let's let Haiti fight it out, resolve their own political problems, and open our doors for ALL Haitians fleeing whether it be for economic or political reasons. What's a few thousand more Haitian immigrants to support...and in the meantime maybe they can be rushed through immigration, become citizens while residing in Florida, and vote for J. F. Kerry!

And, I was wrong in suggesting the infamous Reverend Jessie Jackson to deal with the Haitians. Since the unofficial Democratic nominee Kerry wants to send his own team over to Iraq within the next few weeks or months, let his "miracle workers" swing over to Haiti after they submit their panacea for the problems in Iraq.

You know, it could of been real simple to prove if Aristide was kidnapped or not. Have him make a press statement in South Africa. But really has anyone seen him since the US flew him out of Haiti? Anyone?

Link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/04/1554227

According to Democracy Now he's being held like a prisoner. To prove it isnt true have the man give a press statement. I mean after all the US "helped" him and his family of the country because he asked for their assistance. So he should be more than willing to make a press statement.. Yet .. no press statment.. only our current administration calling the accusations "nonsense."

I'm sorry but I need MORE than just our current "Saddam has tons of WMDs and we know where they are" administration's word to believe.

Too liberal in what way? What was Aristide doing specifically that caused him to lose American support? I'm not saying that I disbelieve you. Your post was very insightful, but there are alot of questions that I have that I'm having difficulty in finding answers to, and this particular statement needs a bit of follow up. What information prompted you to make this particular statement?

Some data that I found:

Economically, the U.S. benefits from Haiti's Assembly Sector...mainly textiles.

From: Industry Canada



AND



The U.S. was benefitting from Haiti economically under Aristide's presidency more so than under previous rule unless I'm missing some factor, which is very possible. My understanding of economics is not fantastic.

What other value would the U.S. receive from assisting in the removal of Aristide? Is it militarily strategic? Is it about illegal immigration? Was this an issue of human rights in Haiti? An effort to avoid further bloodshed? More questions than answers from me at this point.

This is a long-standing problem in US history which dates back to the Cold War (well, actually it dates back even further when, through companies like United Fruit, Latin America and the Caribbean were essentially US colonies). Since the Thirties, though, the US has generally backed right-wing military regimes (usually friendly to the United States) and generally opposed democratically-elected governments throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean. Why? The opposition to military regimes tends to be fairly liberal, often - horrors! - socialist. The last thing that the US wants to see in this hemisphere is another Sandino or Castro. Hence, we have almost always favored military dictators over elected socialists: Down with Duarte! Death to Sandinistas! Be patriotic - kill a priest!

This was the case in the Dominican Republic in 1930 (Rafael Trujillo), in El Salvador in 1931 (Gen. Martinez) and throughout much of its modern history (Alfredo Christiani and Roberto D'Aubuisson), in Cuba in 1932 and 1952 (Batista both times), in Paraguay in 1954 (Alfredo Stroessner), in Nicaragua throughout much of the Twentieth Century (the Somozas), in Brazil in 1961 (Gen. Branco), in Bolivia in 1970 (Col. Banzer), in Chile in 1973 (Gen. Pinochet), in Argentina in 1976 (Gen. Videla), in Honduras in the Seventies and Eighties (Roberto Cordova and Gen. Alvarez), in Guatemala in 1982 (Gen. Montt), in Panama in 1983 (Gen. Noriega) - and in Haiti during most of the Twentieth Century, notably under the Duvaliers and in the first coup, from 1991-94, against Aristide (Gen. Cedras).

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "Aristide proved too liberal" - perhaps I should have said "Aristide proved liberal at all".

From the early eighties, when he was a priest in the most poverty-stricken areas of Haiti and lived in the slums of Port-au-Prince, he was an advocate of the poor (and spokesperson for the progressive wing of the Catholic church in Haiti) and founded a home for street children in 1986, La Fanmi Lavalas. He rose to prominence through the broadcast of his sermons on Radio Soleil and was a vocal critic of the Duvaliers - under whose rule (and with US support) 60,000 Haitians were killed and countless more were tortured by the Duvaliers' Tonton Macoutes death squads.

After the Duvaliers fell and the country became a chaos of competing military powers, Aristide was a leading advocate for democracy. Under the junta in charge, Aristide survived nine assassination attempts, had both his church, St. John Bosco, and his children's home burnt to the ground, and continued broadcasting from a demonstration in front of the Fort Dimanche prison while the crowd was being massacred around him by the Haitian military.

When the US finally figured that elections might be in order in 1990, Aristide entered the race at the last minute and won an astonishing 67% of the vote. Under his Lavalas government, he cleaned out the corrupt civil service, enforced tax codes, fought crime, and restored basic human rights. His worst crimes, though, were that he fought drug trafficking, over which the US has always wanted to maintain control in the Western hemisphere, and (as mentioned in my previous posting) that he abolished the army which had been founded by an Act of Congress in the US, establishing Haiti's first civil police force.

The presumption had been that whoever won the country's elections would be a puppet of the United States - especially with the army that we had established still in position to keep any uppity president in line. It was bad enough that Aristide was a social reformer, interested in poverty and human rights - and that he was a progressive Catholic (read "damned socialist") - but when Aristide did away with Haiti's American military, he as good as sealed the fate of his presidency.

Do you think the American textile industry will fare any worse under whoever we next sanction to be in charge?


(A bit more on Aristide can be found here.)

Yes, CNN showed the wimp and his family sitting in a very nice living room, stating that he still was President (although he submitted a letter of resignation) and appealed to his people to stay behind his cause (whatever that may be) and come to a peaceful solution. As I heard this jerk talk, I thought you couldn't lead your people out of a paper bag!

If Aristide and the Bush bashers continue to protest, I have a very simple solution for the Bush Administration....buy Aristide a one-way ticket back to Haiti, deliver him on the front steps of his palace, and then ship all military/peace keeping support out of Haiti...and let the chips fall where they may. Talk about a coward!

Aristide was democratically elected - twice. The terroists who were threatening his life and murdering their fellow citizens were not. Ultimately the question here (President Aristide has left Haiti. Was it right?) boils down to this: Are you in favor of the democratic process or are you opposed to it? It seems clear where some (like the Bush administration) stand.

I have admitted that Aristide's presidency, crippled as it was by both violent internal opposition and flimsily justified external sanctions, was far from perfect. But I would like to see some of those who are judging Aristide out of hand - and making all kinds of allegations about his presidency and his character - come up with a bit of evidence to support their claims...

Aristide may have been democratically elected this last time, and even that is up for debate, but as Powell has stated, he was not acting in a democratic fashion. He was turning into a tyrannical dictator. The people were rising up against him and he left Haiti of his own accord as evidenced by his resignation and eyewitnesses.

I am in complete agreement with DTOM on this issue. Certain “leaders” in this country are making accusations as if they are truths, speaking angrily as if some great injustice has taken place and playing this for every drop of political gain they can get. This isn't the ONLY issue of which they are using this tactic and it is so disheartening.

As with every other allegation which has been made in this thread (I'm not singling you out by any means, Bela), on what is this "turning into a tyrannical dictator" based? Do any of you guys have news stories to back this up? Reports from human rights groups? Letters from eye-witnesses? Transcripts from Ouija board sessions?

It's just that I've been trying to look into this and all I can find is that the violent opposition which has been violently opposing Aristide since 1990 is still violently opposing him. I realize that the last election was questioned - largely because the violent opposition refused to participate in the election in the first place and then cried "foul" because they didn't cast their votes. But the only criticism I've come acrosss relating to Aristide's presidency or his character seems to be wholly founded on opinion with no cited foundation whatsoever - all too similar to what's going on in this thread.

I'm sure the information is out there somewhere - clearly, several of you have seen it. One more time: Can you point the rest of us to this information, please?

Hmmm... I seem to remember that there was much suspicion over the 2000 elections in Haiti, I wonder why?

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns...er.haiti.07.21/

http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Archiv...st2000/oas9.htm

Oh, that's right... THE ELECTION WAS TWEEKED WITH!



I guess Aristide wasn't in favor of the democratic process himself.

But anyway, after doing some reading on the subject, I've come to find that the US (as Wertz had pointed out) did not readily support Aristide because he was believed to lean towards Marxism. And yet, in 1994, the US restored him to power after the military coup. Why would we do such a thing if, as you pointed out Wertz, that we prefer right-wing military dictators. (It's an honest question, no sarcasm intended)



O.k.

I've also come to find that Aristide was not the saint many pegged him to be.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html






Is a quote from Aristide himself and that article decent evidence?



I seem to remember an American document that spoke of dissolving the government when it becomes destructive to the masses. Oh, I remember now, its our own DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Is this not what the rebels did to an extent? Aristide had turned from a priest with great aspiration for his country to a corrupt man who lost touch with the common Haitian and helped propel that nation into an abyss. The people were sick of living poor while he lived it up.

In any event, perhaps what Jefferson said was right:

Yes, I am in favor of a democratic process, but as previous posts providing various links to articles that read otherwise, the election process was a tad less than honest. About as honest and democratic as Iraq's re-election of President Saddam and him winning 100% of the votes!

Edited to ad a link from article: Aristide on his way to Jamaica!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/03/...aiti/index.html

CNN Robert Novak article:

QUOTE

My reason for being less than understanding or compassionate about Aristide's current circumstance is due to the fact that he called us asking for help and after much consultation and consideration including leaders from other countries, we gave it to him. Only this time, the help wasn't in line with previous aid of millions of dollars, troops, and Powell and Nun going over there attempting to help restore peace and Aristide's power/leadership. For once, France and the U. S. were on the same page in regard to Aristide...they like the U. S. and numerous other leaders were against sending financial aid, more troops, and a team to physically go over there to help a failed President who no longer was able to lead his people or control the events in his country.

U. S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell's statement (quote below) describes his direct participation in the events leading up to and including Aristide's flight out of Haiti to a safe haven. Now we have Aristide suffering from resignation remorse and yelling he was kidnapped by the very leaders he called on for help. Aristide is a LIAR!

IMO, what is more distasteful and perplexing than President Aristide's lies about the circumstances that removed him from Haiti into a temporary safe haven, is the indignation and insuations by the Democrats that Aristide's assertion about being kidnapped is believable but our Secretary of State, Colin Powell's involvement and statements are not. The Democrats' program of revenge, hate, and attempts in creating an environment to weaken Bush and his administration among the American voters is election year politics. Those same representatives on the other side of the aisle plus a mere nominee running for the office of President (without the benefit of pertinent/classified information available to our President and his administration) who choose to carry and promote their election year agenda and rhetoric into the global arena where it could have a serious impact on relations and U. S. agenda (not Kerry's) among our friends and foes is SELF-SERVING, UNAMERICAN and DANGEROUS!

Here is a CNN raw transcript with Powell regarding the assertions of Aristide. Maxine Waters should take a long vacation and get her priorities in order regardless of the fact that it is an election year. We need another investigation like she needs another big mouth!

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: ... charges are leveled at us.

He should've left before; most of the people didn't want him there (contrary to what Haitians living abroad have been saying.. how would they know what it's like if they don't live there anymore?).

The part about the Marines in Port-au-Prince I still don't understand very well. What's their business killing the so-called "rebels" over there? And then dumping their bodies God knows where. In fact, why are they even there? Let the UN or some other (unarmed) organization deal with it.