listening to Rumsfeld explain the Abduction claim made my head spin.

So much for the Bush Administration's purported desire to promote democracy. A democratically elected president is railroaded out of office with the administration's connivance, and we're supposed to be the "good guys"?

Didn't the 2000 Haitian election have well-documented election irregularities puts into question their commitment to democracy? The international community condemned the elections and Kofi Annan questioned the government's legitimacy. Jesse Jackson today said this was a constitutional-gov't, but how can that be so if there is no legislature?

I mean I know y'all don't like Bush's foreign policy, but Aristide leaving prevented fighting and will restore the flow of int'l aid to the country -- the extremely poor Haitian people can only benefit from this... ...unless I'm missing something, which I'm sure someone can point out.

...well Norm I was just stopping by to say thanks for those links on Slippery Slope arguements, I like Geoffrey Nunberg's article quite a bit. So anyways I was just stopping by to say that, but had to comment on this...because well the conservative in me just had to! :)

There is seldom an election anywhere that doesn't have some irregularities, but those irregularties are obviously not the reason for the coup. Didn't the 2000 U.S. elections have some well-documented election irregularities that put into question their commitment to democracy. Couldn't resist.

must have been the liberal in you, Norm, god bless him.

way to equivocate...the left, it seems, will defend anybody as long as it makes Bush look bad. I used to hate Clinton the same way too, but I like to think I learned my lesson not to do that again... Cheers!

In my opinion the question is not one of whether Aristide was good or bad for Haiti, but in the U.S. role in his overthrow. The evidence seems clear that we were active participants in a coup. Is that the proper role of the U.S. government. It is for the Bush Administration, but should it be. As to equivocation one can just as easily say that the equivocation is that of the Bush Lovers. They will defend any action he takes as long as it makes Bush look good.

I do question J. Jackson's and Rangel's assertion that Aristide was "duly elected" and ran a constitutional government, but he was still the head of state of Haiti. If you are going to pressure a head of state to resign because of a fraudulent election then you don't do it by letting generalized anarachy spin out of control. The more 'constitutional' way to do it is to get everyone to stop shooting and then sort it out.

"prevented fighting and will restore the flow of int'l aid to the country -- "

(Oh why can't you liberals get past blind hatred and see the good in Mr. Bush?)

Ahem, acording to congresspersons on C-SPAN last night, the Bushies were blocking the flow of aid to the country. Nor did they ever pressure the rebels to sign the power sharing agreement that Aristide agreed to. It also appears they armed the rebels (noted death squad killers). No, their MO seems to be to punish Haiti and yet another Central American leader popular with the poor, and then blame said leader for the problems in an attempt to justify and foment a coup d'etat. Further, it appears Aristide's biggest crime was trying to run a government that did not completely give away its resources -- and people -- to exploitation by foreign powers.

They're trying to do the same in Venezuela, but so far Chavez has proven too tough to dislodge.

the Bushies were blocking the flow of aid to the country

If one wouldn't mind perusing the articles I linked to in my first post, it was under Clinton that aid started to get blocked -- with the support of the Int'l community mind you.

It also appears they armed the rebels

Seriously? I've yet to see evidence of this. Norm also mentioned that there is evidence we were "active participants in a coup". Is this true? I wouldn't doubt it, but haven't seen any evidence. Regardless, we installed the guy, he was corrupt, he screwed up his chance to fix the country and led it to civil war, so I think it is entirely appropriate we fix this mess. (and I say this tenatively, I support getting rid of a corrupt, illegitimate man like Aristide, but the precedent...)

Aristide's biggest crime was trying to run a government that did not completely give away its resources -- and people -- to exploitation by foreign powers

It is well known by the int'l community that Aristide's gov't was very corrupt and using most of the foreign aid money to enrich themselves. While the gangs that sought to oust him were bad, he too would engage in killing his enemies in a brutal manner. Since the int'l community wouldn't give him aid, and since his ouster prevented civil war from ravaging the capital, it is a good thing he left/we twisted his arm.

Evidence of armed rebels: First-hand reporting from Haiti on Democracy Now Pacifica radio show. Also, the second article you point to notes

The article you point to supports this, saying the US has funded the opposition. Their arms are US-made. How obvious does it need to be?

The article also supports my contention that, whatever his problems, the U.S. was mostly interested in his ouster because he resisted neo-liberal policies like cutting public programs.

From the article: "The United States government has never been comfortable with the leftist, populist platform of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The U.S. National Endowment for Democracy has consistently funded opposition groups in Haiti, including many members of the Democratic Convergence.

...

Seizing upon the excuse offered by opposition criticism of the 2000 elections, the United States orchestrated a suspension of international aid. The small amounts of aid that have been doled out have been conditioned on adoption of neo-liberal economic measures, such as cutting education spending and ending fuel subsidies. These measures are anathema to Aristide's political base, and his reluctant acquiescence in them has alienated some of that base. Haiti remains divided between the desperately poor farmers and slum-dwellers and a small elite running export-import businesses and light industry."

Of course, Clinton could or would do the same in similar circumstances, although he was a better politician and could make his crimes go down easier. I can be critical of Clinton or an Aristide, and still support them over far more corrupt thugs, which is what the opposition in Haiti is, as well as what Bush is.

Also from the article you point to:

"The political opposition is headed by the Democratic Convergence, which is primarily led by the Haitian business elite. Other opposition groups, such as the Group of 184, include students, teachers, and even former Aristide supporters who have become disillusioned with his government's performance. But the political opposition, while it turns out demonstrators in the streets of the capital, is not the power behind the current armed "rebellion" in Haiti. The leadership of the armed rebels is drawn from criminal gangs and from the disbanded army, which was responsible for the 1991-94 reign of terror that took over the government and killed more than 5,000 Haitians. Former leaders of that era, some of whom have been tried in absentia and convicted of massacres and other crimes, have returned from their hiding places to lead the armed rebels. They include former military death-squad leader and convicted murderer Louis-Jodel Chamblain and former police chief and coup plotter Guy Phillippe."

This is how you "fix this mess"? I think we can do better.