[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
30792 Kondrat (response) Durban (30745) on Clinton, Bush, coups and the Lancet (fwd)
From: Peter Kondrat <kondr8@gmail.com>
Lance Durban misunderstands the essential nature of the dialogue about the
Lancet article and the 2004 coup in Haiti in his latest post, with an odd
analogy invoking George Bush.
What is the reason that the millions of Americans today who find Bush
criminally incompetent are not calling for a coup in the US? It is because
we realize that constitutional rule is a principle that rises above
antipathy for any particular officeholder, even when (clearly in the case of
Bush) the Constitution has been shredded.
If we were to advocate removing Bush by extraconstitutional means, the door
would be opened to potentially far more catastrophic events. And that is
exactly what occurred when Lance and his pals got their wish and chased
their bogeyman from office by extraconstitutional means.
The sad spectacle of the impeachment of President Clinton is a better
analogy to what occurred to Aristide: the determinative difference between
the two cases -- the reason that Clinton stayed and Aristide did not --
boils down to the fact that Clinton did not fear for the personal safety of
his family during the slow-motoin televised coup that was mounted against
him, and he had much stronger political skills to combat those who were
defiling the Constitution for partisan gain.
The consequences of the overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide were, of
course, catastrophic. Certainly thousands died in the political violence
that ensued. Foreign investment and the middle class fled. Kidnappings
became almost as commonplace as hunger. Hundreds or thousands of political
prisoners were held with impunity. Graft and corruption reached new heights,
or depths. The result of demolishing Haiti's constitutional government and
replacing it with an unelected government was an unmitigated human rights
disaster for thousands of Haitians.
Peter Kondrat