25654: Kondrat (reply) Re: 25644: (reply) Chamberlain: 25638: Ferdinand: (reply) Re: 25621: Simidor (reply) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Peter Kondrat <petekondrat@yahoo.com>

Greg,

First of all, it's a lame exercise to use the old
"This is precisely the argument that ..."
Hitler/Duvalier/Attila the Hun used ... and then to
say, "not that I am comparing these two!" It's a
deceptive rhetorical device, not worthy of someone as
smart as you.

Second, it might be better to reserve quotation marks
for words that were actually spoken or written by the
person you attribute them to ... this is standard
practice.

But more to the substance: you say that "opposition
'obstruction'" is often used as an excuse to cover up
official misdeeds, and you appear to suggest that this
was the dynamic operating in Haiti. Greg, there is a
huge difference between an opposition that functions
within the constitutional framework, and an opposition
that denies the legitimacy of the current government
and then seeks to oust it through whatever means are
available.

The anti-popular, anti-constitution forces in Haiti
repudiated the constitution and clamored for JBA's
resignation from before Day One ... The anti-Clinton
forces did the same thing, it's just that they don't
get quite as messy and bloody in Washington as they do
in PauP ... but the essential strategy is the same:
deny the legitimacy of those in power, level all types
of personal assaults against those in power, seek to
create as much turmoil and chaos as possible so that
the man in power must devote just about all his
energies and resources and "political capital" to
fighting off the anti-constitution forces...

When you look at what we were left with after Clinton,
and what Haiti is left with after Aristide, you can
see just how cynical, self-serving and nihilistic this
strategy usually is.

Peter Kondrat