20227: radtimes: A Thugs Leftist Groupies (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: radtimes <resist@best.com>


A Thug's Leftist Groupies

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12522

By Michael Radu
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 10, 2004

According to Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) in an interview on CNN, the
administration is responsible for the overthrow of Haiti's former
president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide; Aristide was "a democratically elected,"
albeit "not perfect" figure. The opposition is comprised of "thugs,"
although Dodd does not know anything about their leader, Guy Philippe.
According to Dodd, the administration weakened democratic legitimacy in
Latin America by not supporting Aristide, because it did not like him. Of
course, the fact that two presidents of Ecuador, one of Argentina and, more
recently, the very pro-US president of Bolivia, Sanchez de Lozada, all
democratically elected, were overthrown during the past few years, with no
US intervention, conveniently escapes Senator Dodd's memory. That,
considering Mr. Dodd's well-established romance with the unsavory Left in
Latin America, is no surprise; the fact that such statements make him a
moderate among Democrats, is one.

Indeed, Rep. Maxine Waters of California claimed that Aristide's wife told
her that she and her husband, ""felt like [Aristide] was in jail…Yes, he
felt like he was under arrest and in jail." Whether that is true or not,
and Waters is known to have peculiar feelings of her own--she described the
racist Los Angeles riots as "rebellion" and was a promoter of the notion
that crack was introduced by the CIA as a plot against blacks. Randall
Robinson, self-exiled black racialist, apologist for Aristide and noisy
promoter of the notion that "America owes" its wealth to blacks and thus
"owes" them "reparations," repeated the claims. Clearly, Haiti's
voodoo-laced conspiracy culture is not limited to that country.

Referring to Aristide as having been democratically elected is a misnomer.
For example, when Saddam Hussein declared himself elected with 100% of the
Iraqi vote in 2002, just about everybody laughed (I cannot vouch for Rep.
Waters or Mr. Robinson); when Aristide was "elected" in 2000 with 97% of
the vote, which the opposition boycotted (only 15% bothered to
participate), that, according to Sen. Dodd, Mr. Robinson and Rep. Waters
(and mindlessly joined by the media) makes him "democratically elected."
And, implicitly, the fact that one year later he blatantly rigged
parliamentary elections presumably strengthens his Jeffersonian credentials.

But none of that matters for the Congressional Black Caucus--Aristide was a
"democrat" overthrown by the implicitly racist Bush gang, yet another
demonstration of the Caucus increasingly pernicious irrelevance. Aristide
was black, anti-American, a "progressive" who made it rich in the
Hemisphere's poorest country--all endearing characteristics, apparently.
Never mind that 99% of Aristide's opponents, and all his victims--the
Haitian people--were also black, or that a few hundred (black and poorly
armed) opponents drove him out amidst mass sympathy or indifference from
the population--evidently those were neither black enough, nor
"progressive" enough nor, presumably, aware of what is good for them. As
for the "racists" in the Administration, such as Powell and Rice, we all
know, because Harry Belafonte told us, that they are just "house slaves."
Aristide's racialist "progressivism" evidently has an echo among some in
Congress.

As Garry Pierre-Pierre, publisher and editor-in-chief of New York's Haitian
Times, put it in The Wall Street Journal,  "[Aristide's] detractors
included the intellectual left, instrumental in forming the Lavalas popular
movement which swept him into power 14 years ago; and they also included
women's groups, church groups, and the labor unions, which, all taken
together, made clear that there was no part of his original radical base
that was not against him. (Only the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus, far
removed from Haiti and from reality, stood by its man.)."

Aristide, always the Orwellian, told state radio in Bangui, "By toppling
me, they have cut down the tree of peace, but it will grow again." Indeed,
peace is not exactly the word one would immediately associate with
Aristide--after his first, and only legitimate election in 1990, this
former man of the cloth was openly encouraging the mobs of Port au Prince
to enjoy themselves with "Pére Lebrun" – the creole term for "necklacing"
(burning people with gasoline filled tires around their neck) made famous
by the other famous racialist "progressive"--convicted thief and kidnapper
Winnie Mandela. That was then--after regaining power on the backs of the
Marines, the now defrocked ex-priest took more than a page from the
Duvalier regime he helped overthrow--the new pro-regime mobs were
renamed--from Tontons Macoutes into chimères. When the CIA accurately
predicted all this, its analyst was criticized, implicitly--or not so
implicitly--accused of racism.

Is "America" guilty of anything in Haiti? The answer should be obvious:
"America" is not; the race obsessed Left is. But do not expect Waters,
Robinson or Jesse Jackson to ever admit it--no, it is always somebody
else's fault. That is just like Aristide's claim (perhaps inspired by
Robinson) that France "owes" Haiti (or him?) some $ 21 billion--precisely
the sort of claim that would make a Dominique de Villepin furious and
revengeful--and that Franco-American "colonialism" is the cause of Haiti's
misery.

What next? "WE HAVE seen quite a few revolutions, but this is the weirdest
one," said Walter Bussenius, a retired hotelier in Cap-Haïtien," quoted by
The Economist. Indeed, Haiti had 32 prior violent changes of government in
200 years of existence--an average of one every six years, and this one is
the weirdest, because it was probably the least violent (so far), started
by Aristide's thugs turning against him, and implemented by only a handful
of men. That said, it is unlikely to be the last--or the weirdest, for
long. The middle class is virtually non-existent or in New York and Miami;
the political parties are fictional; the decent opposition to Aristide has
no guns, and the successful one has guns but is far from decent.

Next question: does the United States owe anything to Haiti? The answer is,
again, no, but Washington has an obligation to prevent yet another
uncontrollable wave of illegal Haitian immigrants. That means that the
Coast Guard will be in view of the Haitian coast for a long time. Other
than that, here is the perfect opportunity for the United Nations to
demonstrate that it could do what France and the Democratic candidates for
president claim it could and should have done in Iraq--fix a broken
society, dysfunctional political culture, and tradition of violence.
Perhaps France, which for once has demonstrated more clarity and steadier
will than Washington, would take the leadership of a UN force of Fijians
and Bangladeshis and do what US interventions in Haiti (one lasting between
1915-1931) have failed to do. We should cheer them on.
------------
Michael Radu is Senior Fellow and Co - Chair, Center on Terrorism and
Counterterrorism, at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.

.