30796: Durban (reply): 30792 to Kondrat re. Aristide Ouster (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

To set the record straight, Lance Durban <lpdurban@yahoo.com> replies
to a totally erroneous assumption by Peter Kondrat:

  Kondrat writes:
     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.

Whoa!  I am not sure what "pals" you are talking about, Peter, but for
the record I was NEVER in favor of the removal of Aristide from office
by any means before the end of his 5 year term!  This does not mean
that I thought he was anything other than a disaster, and I also
understand that many would question the fairness of the elections which
brought him to power in 2001.

BUT, it cannot really be denied that Aristide would have won that
election of 2000 even if the other legitimate parties had not boycotted
it.  I was entirely in favor of Preval's position that the 2000
presidential election needed to go forward as called for by the Haitian
constitution.  Of course with no viable opponents wishing to run, it
WAS a no brainer that Aristide would win.

Granted, a couple of years later there were plenty of people in Haiti
glad to see Aristide go, but there were also many many folks who were
opposed to any forced removal such as what actually occurred.   As far
as I am concerned if 'pep-la' show their preference for a leader in an
election... even one in which there may be some question (think Florida
in 2000)... then they are stuck with their choice until the next
regularly scheduled election (unless the democracy is a parliamentary
system where elections can be called early).

Now then, the more interesting question is to what extent did the U.S.
facilitate or orchestrate Mr. Aristide's early removal.  Kondrat and
his pals may believe that it was a 'kidnapping', but as far as I am
concerned that is sheer nonsense.  IMHO, a not-very-courageous
President Aristide called U.S. Ambassador James Foley for help, and the
latter ultimately lost his job because of he offered that help in a
manner that could later be termed a 'kidnapping' by Mr. Aristide.
That's my take on it, anyway.

Lance Durban