SwiftVets.com

[justamom]

Kerry was more than willing to pay any price and bear any burden - including the loss of the lives of US troops - to restore to power a de-frocked Catholic priest (who is also a Communist) in a country in which we have no vital interest.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3831

A war Kerry wanted
September 11th, 2004


On the anniversary of 9/11 it is useful to remember that John Kerry has not always been against the unilateral use of American force. It would seem he only opposes such use of American force when it is a matter of our interests or our national security.

For when it came to restoring to power a de-frocked Catholic priest, who is also a Communist, to a country in which we have no vital interest, Kerry was more than willing to pay any price and bear any burden—including the loss of the lives of US troops.

This is an editorial* John F. Kerry wrote that appeared in the New York Times on May 16, 1994 in which he laid out why it was so important for us to invade Haiti:

[Editor's note: because we cannot find a copy this editorial on the web, we take the liberty of quoting it fully, rather than linking to it as we would prefer.]

Haiti’s military rulers continue to thumb their noses at the United States and the rest of the world. Since the ouster of President Jean-Bertrande Aristide in September 1991, the international community has consistently tried to pressure the junta to step aside, but nothing has worked --not diplomacy, not tighter sanctions, not a partial naval embargo. By tolerating their defiance and unrelenting brutality, we have empowered Haiti’s military thugs.

As a result, our credibility as a world leader is at stake. Haiti’s military leaders 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. We need to pursue an aggressive diplomatic course, to escalate sanctions and to impose a total naval blockade if necessary. But if those don’t work, we must be willing to seek international approval to use military force.

My clear first choice is to pursue an aggressive diplomatic course of multilateral negotiations aimed at forcing the military leaders out within a short time. But precisely because there was no believable threat of force, our efforts have failed.

Opponents argue that President Aristide is so flawed that he does not deserve our help, that an invasion would be bloody and costly and could involve us in a long-term military quagmire. But the issue is not simply the return of an individual. It is the restoration of the democratic process in Haiti. Father Aristide may not be perfect (what elected leader is?), but we have never discarded whole democracies because of an individual leader. Moreover, he has already demonstrated his willingness to compromise, agreeing to share power with a broad-based coalition with safeguards for everyone’s rights. Those assurances could be bolstered by international peacekeepers.

There is every reason to think an international invasion would succeed. Haiti’s 7,000-man military is hardly a formidable opponent. It is an undisciplined collection of gun-wielding bullies with little training or experience other than terrorizing poor, unarmed civilians. In Iraq, we decimated the world’s fifth-largest army in a couple of months. In Grenada and Panama, outlaw regimes were ousted in a matter of days. A show of determined resolve from a U.S.-led international force of professional soldiers, backed up with sufficient air power, could quickly subdue the Haitian military.

Haitian history is filled with coups and civil wars. There are deep-seated hatreds between the small, wealthy, ruling mulatto elite, which is in league with the military, and the poor, largely uneducated masses, which make up 90 percent of the population. That enmity is born of decades of repressive rule and irresponsible social policy.

The division is complicated by the presence of “attachés,” the plainclothes military thugs who have replaced the hated Tonton Macoutes of the Duvalier regime. These attachés come from the masses but do the bidding of the elite. In a culture where revenge and retribution have played such prominent roles, healing the hatreds will not come easily.

But the prospect of a Vietnam-like quagmire can be avoided by guaranteeing at the outset that military action will under no circumstances lead to a U.S. occupation of Haiti. Any intervention should be followed with the immediate insertion of a large international peacekeeping force. 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. This could be accomplished along the lines contemplated in the July 1993 accord at Governor’s Island, which was supposed to have led to the return of Father Aristide.
Some will argue that the last time we went into Haiti, we stayed 19 years. But that invasion was in 1915 -- an age of colonialism that has long since been repudiated. In 1994, we would be going to wrest the nation from the grip of a tiny elite and return it to the vast majority of Haitians. The difference between occupation and liberation is dramatic.

Some argue that intervening in Haiti is not worth the loss of an American life. We should remember that American soldiers were at risk when we intervened in Grenada, Panama and Iraq. Those who supported Presidents Bush and Reagan ought to ask themselves why the Haitian situation is different. Is it simply that the President is of a different political party? What other facts are different?

Every individual reason given for those previous interventions is present in the plural in Haiti -- to protect innocent lives, to end chaos, to restore order, to root out drug traffickers. Most important, in Haiti, we would be restoring a stolen democracy, human dignity and hope to a country’s brutalized masses.

In the absence of clear and present danger, the United States should not use force unilaterally. If ultimately needed, the force should be similar to the international one used in the Persian Gulf. It should consist of troops from the “four friends” -- the United States, France, Canada and Venezuela -- and from other nations in the region. The military power should be massive, to minimize casualties, and the intervention should be short. Granted, it will take leadership and persuasive power to build the coalition. But the United States succeeded in both regards in Grenada, Panama and Iraq, and there’s no reason it can’t accomplish the same for Haiti.

Some of those governments have expressed reluctance to commit to a military solution before the current diplomatic strategy has time to mature. They miss the point. Failure to threaten the use of 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.
If ultimately needed, any intervention should use vast military power to minimize casualties and the time commitment. Once the coup leaders were ousted and the allied forces replaced by peacekeepers under the United Nations, the technical assistance and financial aid promised in the Governor’s Island accord should be expanded and undertaken to insure the restoration of democracy.

No one should ever casually entertain the use of military power. Certainly I do not; it is a most serious proposition. But it is imperative that we and other nations in the hemisphere put the option on the table now. It is the best means to avoid a unilateral response under emergency conditions later on. It’s also the best means of putting teeth in our diplomacy now.

The people of Haiti cannot restore democracy -- cannot overthrow a drug-running, gun-wielding military regime -- by themselves. They need our help. If our stated goal of restoring democracy is real, if our concern for the Haitian people is genuine, if our credibility as a world leader is important, then we must confront the crisis in Haiti with the will to act.

*Editorial Article 1 -- No Title By John Kerry New York Times (1857-Current file); May 16, 1994; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times pg. A17

[RogerDraftDodger]

Every day, in everyway, it is becoming apparant that there is nothing under his haircut...
_________________
I am awed by you guys...

[GoophyDog]

Hiya Mom. No need to go back that far. Here's some links:

The Kerry-Kennedy-Haiti Connection

Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide

Ramsey Clark Endorses John Kerry

Questioning Kerry's Haiti Position

John Kerry a hawk on Haiti

I think that's enough to establish Mr. Kerry's position. Of course there's more and as even mentioned in one of the articles we haven't even begun to touch on the Contra connection.

Just where does Kerry want this country to go and by what method do we get there?
_________________
Why ask? Because it needs asking.

[justamom]

But WHY isn't any of this being addressed?

I'm telling ya, the behavior of the msm during this election campaign cycle is frightening me to death. Yeah, for years there's been talk of the liberal media, the media's bias, ya-da-ya-da. But what they're doing this time around? Frankly, they've shown more than I cared to see! What are they? Communist? Socialist? Facist? All?

I read so much on the blogs...did you realize Kerry plays the "religious" card ONLY IN FRONT OF BLACK AUDIENCES???? Dear Heaven, how condescending! Yet, they cheer and scream as if he's their savior! He has even quoted scripture suggesting President Bush is as the antiChrist!

Very scary times we live in, indeed. Never thought I'd live to see the day...saddens me that I have brought children into this world (God forgive me, please).

Please, please tell me....isn't there ANYTHING we can do? I've written television, newspapers, etc. but my voice isn't being heard. I talk to people I meet, especially those that display Kerry support, but does that do much good? In the big picture?

This man (how I HATE using that word for him) has SERIOUS character flaws, a SERIOUS lack of character, integrity, humanity, ANYTHING POSITIVE! HOW THE HECK CAN IT BE THAT PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING HIM FOR PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY AND COMMANDER OF OUR ARMED FORCES????????

WHY are people not demanding he answer up to the questions he's being asked? WHY is he getting a free-pass on EVERYTHING?

God Bless You All, Swiftees! I just don't understand why your allegations are being ignored and wish I could stop the world and make someone listen.

Oh well, more money on the way. Too bad I don't have enough to send to make the headlines!!!

[msindependent]

And, they just keep throwing up Halliburton to cover their asses on stuff like this. I'm not saying that Halliburton is not above this, I'm saying that they use it as a smoke screen 24/7. It's almost like dealing with children, you know, the one's who are always pointing their fingers at the other kids when they are really the one's doing the deed, or perhaps they all were. I would also think there are probably more media heads in bed with these people than the obvious. Anyway, after Kerry loses the election in November, I trust he will lose his senate seat next. (And one more thing, the use of the word mulatto was racist, which I think they are, but that's another subject. I'll stop rambling now).

[MAXX]

"Bailing out Aristide", his favourite commie alongside Castro... and the US should do that dirty work ? Kerry's true colours are shining thru I guess..

no wonder - Kerry is a left wing Commie.. The far-left whacko wing of the Democratic party succeeded in transforming this organization into an organization eager to bail out and support the socialists and communists in the world..

www.communistsforkerry.com if you need to make fun of Kerry - unfortunately this topic is too earnest to ridicule..

Defeat communism and socialism wherever you are !

Had enough
MAXX (from austria)