Does Kerry support Bush's overthrow of Haiti?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Has Kerry made a statement? Will Kerry support Bush and come out against Aristide, Haiti's elected president? Since France is involved, would Kerry consider this just Bush's version of "Progressive Internationalism"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1178317

[sangh0]

1. Why don't you try to find out if you're really so interested?

It's not like it's all that hard to do. Just go to Kerry's web site, and in the textbox labelled "Search" enter "Haiti". Then click on the search button.

Not hard! No reason to be scared

[stepnw1f]

3. Excellant Statement

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. okay, I took your "suggestion"

Kerry doesn't stand up for the elected government, and pretends that Bush had nothing to do with the coup. Kerry is complaining that we didn't send military force SOON ENOUGH - and ignores that Bush has been arming the rebels and supporting them:


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224i.html

“In addition to pursuing vigorous diplomacy, the U.S. should bring real leadership to restoring order by working to ensure that a multinational force -- including police from OAS and CARICOM nations, backed up by a visible show of US military force off the coast -- is sent to Haiti as soon as possible. Once the situation is stabilized, the U.S. should provide training and equipment to Haitian police forces, lift the restrictions on our bilateral aid, at least for health and education grants, and ensure that the international financial institutions to give aid in these areas to the government.

“America has a duty to advance our best ideals abroad. If we hope to lead the nations of the world towards a more democratic future, we must act now to protect a fragile democracy in our own backyard. Failure to act in Haiti will have direct consequences on our shores. There is no excuse for allowing this to happen.”

...

No surprises here!

[sangh0]

6. Why don't you care about the suffering Haitians?

Why do you use their suffering for political gain? That's not very liberal or progressive of you.

Kerry wanted our military there to keep Aristide in power. Here's part of the part you left out: "work multilaterally to broker a power sharing agreement between the parties"

That power sharing would have left Aristide in power

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. so, Kerry wanted to arm the rebels, AND keep Aristide in power?

For some reason I don't think Kerry *wanted* civil war...

[sangh0]

12. Where does it say that?

Kerry said nothing about arming nobody. Instead of making stuff up, why don't you read Kerry's statement?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. "Kerry said nothing about arming nobody"

exactly my point. Kerry knows, or should know, what's going on, and as usual, he won't say it.

"Instead of making stuff up, why don't you read Kerry's statement?"

I read his statement, posted some of it. What am I making up? Oh, that was just ad hominem right? Never mind...

[sangh0]

18. "so, Kerry wanted to arm the rebels"

I guess you forgot about that

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. nice selective quotation there sangh0

"so, Kerry wanted to arm the rebels, AND keep Aristide in power?"

That's a question, asking you if that's what you were implying. That's what the "?" is for. I can understand perfectly well why you left off the question mark and the other half of the statement.

Always remember, don't defend Kerry, just attack his critics - that's the best way to be an apologist.

[sangh0]

20. And my answer was, it says nothing about arming the rebels

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. yes, Kerry said NOTHING about Bush arming the rebels

so ...

[sangh0]

25. Actually, Kerry DID say something about Bush* arming the rebels

Try again

[el_gato]

9. some real spurious acusations there sangho

[sangh0]

13. You noticed?

So how come you haven't noticed the spurious accusations of others, like how Kerry wants to arm the rebels?

[BL_Zebub]

2. He's supported Bush's other invasions. Why the HELL wouldn't he?

Support this one, that is.

[sangh0]

4. Statement from John Kerry on Haiti

Statement from John Kerry on Haiti

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224i.html

“The current crisis in Haiti is yet another example of Bush Administration neglect in our own hemisphere. Instead of working to support democratic institutions for the past three years, this Administration has seemed intent on bringing about regime change by encouraging the opposition and cutting off aid from the United States and international financial institutions.

“When the situation on the ground began to degenerate into violence and lawlessness over the past weeks, the Administration stubbornly refused to engage diplomatically. As a result, Haiti is now on the verge of collapsing into a failed state, potentially creating untold hardships for the Haitian people and an enormous influx of refugees on our shores.

“The Administration has now finally realized that it must work multilaterally to broker a power sharing agreement between the parties – the only question is why they didn’t do this sooner. By waiting until the 11th hour to take action, they have made a peaceful resolution that much more difficult to achieve.

“Even now, we must do more to preserve the democratic process. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to make phone calls – we should immediately bring the full weight of U.S. diplomatic pressure to bear on the parties. In 1994, President Clinton sent Colin Powell to Haiti along with President Carter and Senator Sam Nunn to resolve the crisis. This President should do no less. If he won’t send Colin Powell, then he should name another special envoy who understands the Haitian people, understands their terrible problems, and understands the vital US interest in bringing peace and stability to Haiti.

“In addition to pursuing vigorous diplomacy, the U.S. should bring real leadership to restoring order by working to ensure that a multinational force -- including police from OAS and CARICOM nations, backed up by a visible show of US military force off the coast -- is sent to Haiti as soon as possible. Once the situation is stabilized, the U.S. should provide training and equipment to Haitian police forces, lift the restrictions on our bilateral aid, at least for health and education grants, and ensure that the international financial institutions to give aid in these areas to the government.

“America has a duty to advance our best ideals abroad. If we hope to lead the nations of the world towards a more democratic future, we must act now to protect a fragile democracy in our own backyard. Failure to act in Haiti will have direct consequences on our shores. There is no excuse for allowing this to happen.”

[el_gato]

8. hmmm...."broker a power sharing agreement"

"send Colin Powell"

"US military force off the coast"

"advance our best ideals abroad"

Lots of elitist code phrases but not one mention
of maintaining a constitutional government in Haiti.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. this was discussed in NYT a few days ago - Aristide HAD to go

the problems with the "power sharing" agreement was that the elected leader, Aristide, would have to be left in power, therefore, the US rejected it (well, the rebel groups paid for by Bush, acting on orders from the people that arm them and train them, rejected it).

Of course, Kerry - being an insider, leader, investigator of the BFEE, Iran/Contra, BCCI, on the intelligence committee, knows all of this stuff. But many of his supporters would rather not mention it.

[sangh0]

14. So you support Bush*'s coup?

Bush* also thought Aristide HAD to go. That figures

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1181598#1181749

[bornskeptic]

34. Is this simple enough for you?

KERRY: Actually, I disagree with John a little bit, in that the president...

(LAUGHTER)

... the president himself, wasn't engaged, but his administration has been. And his administration has been engaged in a very manipulative and wrongful way.

EDWARDS: Are you saying they were engaged but wrong engaged?

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: Here's what I'm telling you. Here's what I'm telling you. This administration set up an equation. They have a theological and a ideological hatred for Aristide. They always have.

And they approach this so that the insurgents were given -- empowered by this administration, because they said to the insurgents, "If you...

(APPLAUSE)

"... Until you reach an agreement with Aristide and the government about sharing power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance."

So we empowered them to simply veto any agreement, which is what they're still doing with respect to a power-sharing in another government.

What this president ought to have done is to have given them an ultimatum: Either we're going to restore the democracy, have the full democracy in the region -- notwithstanding that I think Aristide has some problems, and I do.

And I think there have been serious problems in his police, the way they've managed things. But our engagement should have been to try to restore the democracy, to bring those people together. That's what president...

KING: All right. Janet has a question.

CLAYTON: But as a practical...

KERRY: ... and that's what we should be doing now.

From Democratic Presidential debate 02/26/04

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10722-2004Feb26_3.html

[KoKo]

11. Sending Colin Powell is not something that would seem to show Kerry's

willingness to break with Bush's Imperialist Foreign Policy. Kerry should have at least said what he would do and who he would send in if he were President. What's wrong with him? He's reminding me of Tom Daschle!

[sangh0]

15. Not true, Bush* didn't want to send Powell

so how is Kerry's wanting the opposite a sign that Kerry agreed with Bush*?

[library_max]

30. This doesn't make sense.

Why should Kerry say what he would have done if he were president? He's not president. The situation isn't going to go into stasis and wait for him to become president. He's saying what Bush should have done. That, for those who seem unwilling to see it, is a criticism of Bush's actions.

As for the accusation that Bush armed and supported the rebels, where's the evidence? Where's the support for that accusation, or is it just conspiracy theory? You seem to want Kerry to make some very extreme accusations based on no evidence. If you have the evidence, go and debate Raul Groom in the other forum.

[salin]

21. From what I gather

this is a pretty accurate statement - that the bushco not only starved aid to Haiti - but also put pressure on other agencies to stop the flow of money to Haiti... and then let things fester... and as things disintigrated did nothing more than a couple of symbolic (empty) phone calls?! The contrast to how Clinton handled an earlier crisis is a strong juxtaposition to the intentional malignent ineptness of how Bushco has handled the situation.

"There is no excuse of allowing this to happen"... strong close - only thing I would change (but until info is more widely available to be known by the public it is probably not wise yet to say) is that the case doesn't seem to be just about "allowing" it to happen... but working subtly to "facilitate" its happening.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. I'd be interested to hear his remarks on Rangel, Waters, Robinson's

conversations with Mr. Aristide.

[sangh0]

22. You're being paged

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1181861

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. I oppose Bush's coup

perhaps the "Progressive Internationalists" and the apologists want to take him up on his offer?

[sangh0]

28. Kerry blames Bush*, and you criticize JK in order to defend Bush*

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

36. are you defending Bush?

Here I am, posting against Bush's coup, and Kerry's inaction in the face of it, and you are accusing me of defending Bush?

If Kerry did this - all his apologists would call it "Progressive Internationalism". This will turn out just like Kerry and Iraq - he supports the war, just not that Bush is the one doing it. Now, that we're in we'll have to "finish the job".

So, who's defending Bush again?

[library_max]

37. "If Kerry did this"? Kerry didn't do this.

"Kerry's inaction"? What do you think Kerry should do?

Kerry should denounce Bush's actions? Kerry DID denounce Bush's actions. His entire statement on the subject is above, post #4.

Kerry should accuse Bush of arming and directing the rebels? Where's the proof? Why should Kerry make wild accusations when there is no proof?

Please stop making stuff up and talk issues.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. oh, that was a denunciation?

I'm sorry. I thought that mild, sort-of criticism, where you agree with the goal, but not the execution, was less than a denunciation. I forgot we were talking about Kerry, so I guess that's the best we'll get.

You were right. So, will Kerry suggest an appointee to Bush? Or will Bush just say he likes the new dictator that Bush installs in Haiti?

[library_max]

39. Well, a candidate for president has to maintain a certain dignity.

He can't comport himself like a loon. He can't yell and shake his fist. He can't make a bunch of stuff up. He can't write "Bush" when he means "Kerry." He has to project a mature and responsible image. That puts a limit on the level of denunciation he can get away with. You have to have some perspective on these things.

[oasis]

24. Kerry is running an effective campaign. He has no reason to dive into

a developing situation which can go out of control.

[MAlibdem]

27. removed

unitentional copyright infringement is the name of my game

[m-jean03]

31. You might want to add a link

and edit out some paragraphs. Just a heads up.

[BruinAlum]

29. From last ngiht debate transcripts

Senator Kerry, President Bush has made it clear that the United States will be part of an international force going to Haiti. You've been critical of that action. Tell me what your beef is with what the president is doing.

KERRY: He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier.

BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, what would you have done in this situation?

KERRY: Well, first of all, I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did.

KERRY: This administration empowered the insurgents, and it empowered -- look, Aristide...

BUMILLER: How did it empower the insurgents?

KERRY: I'll tell you precisely how, but first let me say this. President Aristide has made plenty of mistakes, and his police have run amok, and other things have happened, I understand that.

But the fact is that, by giving to the insurgents the power to veto an agreement, they effectively said, "Unless you two reach an agreement on the sharing of power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance."

So he empowered the insurgents to say, "No, we're not going to reach agreement." And they continued to battle, continued to have no services provided in Haiti, and then it started to spiral downwards.

So the result is that you almost inevitably had the clash that you have today. And innocent Haitians, the people of Haiti, deserved better than that over the course of the last year.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16969-2004Feb29.html

[gottaB]

32. Haitian-Americans will discern friend from foe

A news clipping....

Le principal candidat à l'investiure démocrate pour les présidentielles de novembre prochain, John Kerry, a fait savoir qu'en qualité de président des Etats-Unis, il ne permettrait pas que des terorristes prennent la population haïtienne en otage.

Dans des déclarations au New-York Time repises mercredi par le Boston Globe, M. Kerry a accusé l'admistration Bush d'encourager l'instabilité politique en Haïti en tolérant des bandits armés qui menacent de rennverser un président connstitutionnel (Jean Bertrand Aristide).

" Je pense que l'adminisration Bush exacerbe la situation qui prévaut en Haïti par la suspenson de l'aide humanitairre à ce pays et par son comportement vis-à-vis d'Aristide, a lancé John Kerry.

Il a fait savoir qu'un tel comportement crée un environnement qui permet aux bandes armées de se développer.

"Si j'étais president j'exercerais des pressions sur les bandits pour qu'ils renoncent à leur projet macabre, je les menacerais d'envoyyer une force de maintien de la paix, a encore déclaré M. Kerry, pressant Bush d'être ferme et menaçant vis-à-vis de ces individus (qui se réclament de la plateforme poliique des 184).

http://news.uhhp.com/article.php?ch=2&id=1077740435.482921

Kerry's opposition to these thugs is well known. Anybody who watched Sunday's debate wouldn't have any question about that. Anybody who examined Kerry's career would know exactly where he stands.

[nolabels]

33. Battle on , we got your back side, your flanks and sent out to the points

[corporatewhore]

35. What about Venezuela do ;you think a pres kerry would

try to overthrow chavez too