Special Report
Kerry's Dirty Diplomacy Print Friendly Format
E-Mail this to a Friend
By George Neumayr
Published 3/2/2004 12:07:27 AM


To most sentient observers, Aristide is an obvious Marxist crook and
thug. To John Kerry, he is "Father Aristide." That's what Kerry
quaintly called the brutal strongman in a 1994 New York Times op-ed,
even though Aristide had been sacked from the Salesian order several
years earlier after the Vatican grew weary of his preaching in favor
of Marxist violence.

In that 1994 op-ed, Kerry played the apologist for Aristide. "Father
Aristide may not be perfect (what elected leader is?), but we have
never discarded whole democracies because of an individual leader,"
Kerry wrote. "Moreover, he has already demonstrated his willingness to
compromise, agreeing to share power with a broad-based coalition with
safeguards for everyone's rights."

Here Kerry was trying to pass off a thug as a conciliatory priest.
Aristide was a known inciter of "necklacing," the practice of throwing
flaming tires around opponents' heads. He had compiled a voluminous
record as an abuser of human rights. Kerry, nevertheless, had a
weakness for the defrocked priest.

A dissenting Catholic himself, Kerry sympathized with Aristide's
attempts to turn Catholicism into communism under the guise of
"liberation theology." Which explains why Kerry even to this day
whines about conservative criticism of Aristide's liberation theology.
Last week Kerry accused the Bush administration of "a theological and
ideological hatred" of Aristide. "It goes back to the liberation
theology that he preached earlier in his career," Kerry said. "It's
part of the right's attitude about Aristide."

Joseph Kennedy, another dissenting Catholic with a soft spot for
liberation theologians, invited Aristide to his 1993 wedding in
Massachusetts. Kerry was at the wedding too. Kennedy, then a
Congressman, must also have regarded Aristide as still "Father
Aristide," as he had the exiled thug deliver one of the wedding
readings, according to the Boston Globe.

How did these Democrats manage to overlook Aristide's abuses? In part,
because they were too busy looking at his skin color. Kerry ever so
subtly played the race card in Aristide's favor in his New York Times
op-ed by writing of "deep-seated hatreds between the small, wealthy
ruling mulatto elite, which is in league with the military, and the
poor, largely uneducated, which make up 90 percent of the population."
In other words: Aristide isn't part of that odious "ruling mulatto
elite" but a champion of the black underclass, so America has a duty
to restore him to power.

Kerry, with great urgency, wrote about the need to restore Aristide to
power through U.S. military might -- a stance that appears ludicrous
in light of his go-slow diplomacy over the last few years. Was he
pandering to the vocal Haitian-American community in Boston? For
whatever reason Kerry was in rush-to-war mode on behalf of Aristide,
writing that "nothing has worked -- not diplomacy, not tighter
sanctions, not a partial naval embargo." Kerry wasn't going to stand
for "Haiti's military thugs," who "continue to thumb their noses at
the United States." He worried that "our credibility as a world leader
is at stake."

Haiti's military leaders, Kerry wrote, "must now be put on notice that
we're prepared to take all steps necessary to restore democracy and
prove to all renegade elements that we mean what we say." He waived
away objections by saying that diplomacy without force is feckless:
"Failure to threaten to use 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." He even fended off the
"prospect of a Vietnam-like quagmire" by suggesting that after
propping up Aristide Haiti wouldn't be America's problem anymore. The
international community would nurse Haiti along: "The presence of a
neutral, civilized power will allow Haiti to rebuild its political
institutions, its schools and its health system, and provide some
cooling-off time."

"Father Aristide," no pacifist himself, must have been pleased with
this advocacy, especially since Kerry, along with every other Senator
briefed by the CIA, knew of his established reputation as a
near-demented rabble-rouser. Even as Kerry was writing about "military
thugs" in need of an American beating, the CIA (as news reports from
that period show) was providing the Senate with evidence that Aristide
was a thug himself who, if returned to power, would wreak havoc on
Haiti again.

With typical gall, Kerry now blames a crisis he helped create with his
pro-Aristide advocacy on Bush. Did Bush call for the restoration of a
known inciter of necklacing to power in Haiti? No, Kerry did.


George Neumayr is managing editor of The American Spectator.

Hey....peckerhead. If Aristide is such a problem, then why did we assist him
in leaving, rather than send weapons, which is our usual M.O. when we want a
leader to vanish? And why did your Republican president send Marines to that
island?


"Christopher Robin" wrote in message
om...
Special Report
Kerry's Dirty Diplomacy Print Friendly Format
E-Mail this to a Friend
By George Neumayr
Published 3/2/2004 12:07:27 AM


To most sentient observers, Aristide is an obvious Marxist crook and
thug. To John Kerry, he is "Father Aristide." That's what Kerry
quaintly called the brutal strongman in a 1994 New York Times op-ed,
even though Aristide had been sacked from the Salesian order several
years earlier after the Vatican grew weary of his preaching in favor
of Marxist violence.

In that 1994 op-ed, Kerry played the apologist for Aristide. "Father
Aristide may not be perfect (what elected leader is?), but we have
never discarded whole democracies because of an individual leader,"
Kerry wrote. "Moreover, he has already demonstrated his willingness to
compromise, agreeing to share power with a broad-based coalition with
safeguards for everyone's rights."

Here Kerry was trying to pass off a thug as a conciliatory priest.
Aristide was a known inciter of "necklacing," the practice of throwing
flaming tires around opponents' heads. He had compiled a voluminous
record as an abuser of human rights. Kerry, nevertheless, had a
weakness for the defrocked priest.

A dissenting Catholic himself, Kerry sympathized with Aristide's
attempts to turn Catholicism into communism under the guise of
"liberation theology." Which explains why Kerry even to this day
whines about conservative criticism of Aristide's liberation theology.
Last week Kerry accused the Bush administration of "a theological and
ideological hatred" of Aristide. "It goes back to the liberation
theology that he preached earlier in his career," Kerry said. "It's
part of the right's attitude about Aristide."

Joseph Kennedy, another dissenting Catholic with a soft spot for
liberation theologians, invited Aristide to his 1993 wedding in
Massachusetts. Kerry was at the wedding too. Kennedy, then a
Congressman, must also have regarded Aristide as still "Father
Aristide," as he had the exiled thug deliver one of the wedding
readings, according to the Boston Globe.

How did these Democrats manage to overlook Aristide's abuses? In part,
because they were too busy looking at his skin color. Kerry ever so
subtly played the race card in Aristide's favor in his New York Times
op-ed by writing of "deep-seated hatreds between the small, wealthy
ruling mulatto elite, which is in league with the military, and the
poor, largely uneducated, which make up 90 percent of the population."
In other words: Aristide isn't part of that odious "ruling mulatto
elite" but a champion of the black underclass, so America has a duty
to restore him to power.

Kerry, with great urgency, wrote about the need to restore Aristide to
power through U.S. military might -- a stance that appears ludicrous
in light of his go-slow diplomacy over the last few years. Was he
pandering to the vocal Haitian-American community in Boston? For
whatever reason Kerry was in rush-to-war mode on behalf of Aristide,
writing that "nothing has worked -- not diplomacy, not tighter
sanctions, not a partial naval embargo." Kerry wasn't going to stand
for "Haiti's military thugs," who "continue to thumb their noses at
the United States." He worried that "our credibility as a world leader
is at stake."

Haiti's military leaders, Kerry wrote, "must now be put on notice that
we're prepared to take all steps necessary to restore democracy and
prove to all renegade elements that we mean what we say." He waived
away objections by saying that diplomacy without force is feckless:
"Failure to threaten to use 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." He even fended off the
"prospect of a Vietnam-like quagmire" by suggesting that after
propping up Aristide Haiti wouldn't be America's problem anymore. The
international community would nurse Haiti along: "The presence of a
neutral, civilized power will allow Haiti to rebuild its political
institutions, its schools and its health system, and provide some
cooling-off time."

"Father Aristide," no pacifist himself, must have been pleased with
this advocacy, especially since Kerry, along with every other Senator
briefed by the CIA, knew of his established reputation as a
near-demented rabble-rouser. Even as Kerry was writing about "military
thugs" in need of an American beating, the CIA (as news reports from
that period show) was providing the Senate with evidence that Aristide
was a thug himself who, if returned to power, would wreak havoc on
Haiti again.

With typical gall, Kerry now blames a crisis he helped create with his
pro-Aristide advocacy on Bush. Did Bush call for the restoration of a
known inciter of necklacing to power in Haiti? No, Kerry did.


George Neumayr is managing editor of The American Spectator.